1920-05-20

REPORTS TABLED.

[Stage Direction]
Annual Report of the Department of Railways and Canals.-Hon. J. D. Reid.
Reports of the Proceedings of the Canadian War Records Office, covering the period from 1916 to 1919, and including the Report of the Executive Committee of the Canadian War Memorial Fund.-Rt. Hofl. Sir Robert Borden.

[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. C. J. DOHERTY moved that Bill No. 131 (Letter C of the Senate) to amend the Criminal Code (French Version) be read the first time.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Will the minister please explain the purpose of this Bill?


Mr. DOHERTY:: The Bill is intended to correct a number of errors in translation that have been discovered in the Criminal Code; errors dating back practically to the time of the passing of the Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisks.)

Mr. FRIPP:: 1.	At what date was the resignation of exSenator P. A. Choquette placed in the hands of the Government?
2.	What were the reasons given by ex-Senator Choquette for sending in his resignation?


Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: In reply to No. 1: in the month of December las'; in reply to No. 2: no reasons were assigned.


SIR WILLIAM MACKENZIE.
*Mr. CASGRAIN:: How many times has the private car of Sir William Mackenzie travelled on the Canadian National Railway system within the last two years?


Hon. Mr. REID:: The Government have no information as to the details of operation of each individual car on Canadian National railways.


FREIGHT BOATS ON INLAND WATERS.
Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):: 1.	Does the Government intend to place freight boats built and owned by them on our inland waters during the present season?
2.	If so, how many of said vessels will be so placed?
3.	If the National Merchant Marine Organization has the handling of the Government-owned boats, what reason, if any, do they give for not using some of the vessels under their control in the carrying trade on our Great Lakes?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Boats owned .by the iGovernment through its Government Merchant Marine Are being operated by that organization in connection with the Canadian National railways as will appear in the public interest. Cannct say at present time what steam irs may operate on the Inland Waters during present season.
2. Answered by No. 1.
3. Answered by No. 1.


BIOLOGICAL BOARD.
Mr. TURGEON:: 1.	Who are the members of the Biological Board of Canada?
2.	How are they appointed and by whom?

3.	'What salaries are they paid for their services ?
4.	Who is chairman and who is secretary of the board?
5.	Has the Commissioner of Fisheries any connection with the board?
6.	Where are biological investigations carried on under the board?
7.	What scientific staff did they employ last year, and where?
S. Does the Fisheries Branch of the Naval Service give the board any fishery or other problems to investigate?
9.	If so, what are some of these fishery problems?
10.	Are the services of the Biological Branch of any value to the Fisheries Branch, and to the fishing industry?
11.	What reports are issued on the work of the Biological Board and its staff?


Plon. Mr. B ALLANTYNE:: 1.	Professor E. E, Prince, Commissioner of Fisheries, Chairman; Dr. A. P. Knight, Representative of the Department of Naval Service; Professor L. W. Bailey, Representative of the University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, N.B.; Professor A. H. R. Buller, Representative of the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg; Reverend Canon V. A. Huard, Representative of the Laval University, Museum of Public Instruction, Quebec, P.Q.; Pofessor J. P. MdMurrich, Representative of the University of Toronto, Toronto; Dr. A. H. MacKay, Representative of the Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S.; Professor R. F. Ruttan, President of the Royal Society and representative of McGill University, Montreal.
2.	Two members are nominated and appointed by the minister and represent the Department of the Naval Service on the board. The remaining six members are nominated by the several universities in the different provinces, and represent such provincial universities on the board.
3.	None of the members of the Biological Board are paid any salary or honorarium for their services.
4.	Professor Edward E. Prince is chairman and acts are secretary.
5.	Answered by No. 1.
6.	The Biological investigations are mainly carried on on the Atlantic coast at the Marine Biological Station, St. Andrews, N. B., and on the Pacific coast at the Marine Biological Station, Departure Bay near Nanaimo, !B.C., but investigatons are also carried on at various points on both coasts and the Great Lakes by members of the scientific staff told off for special work. Oyster investigations are being carried on in Richmond Bay and other P.E.I. oyster grounds. Lobster investigations have been carried on at points extending from Gaspe

to the Bay of Fundy. Shad investigations have been carried on in various Nova iScotia rivers and special researches have been conducted in Miramichi Bay and off Capo Breton shores, while on the Great Lakes investigations have been carried on upon the supply of pearl rnussels for the button industry, also on the whitefish fisheries and other cognate subjects.
7.	The Scientific Staff consists of seventeen (17) trained scientific workers at St. Andrews and 15 scientific workers at the Pacific Station at Nanaimo. Their names are: Dr. A. P. Knight, Kingston, Ont.; Dr. A. G. Huntsman, Toronto, Ont.; Prof. L. W. Bailey, Fredericton, N.B.; Prof. Phil Cox, Fredericton, N.B.; Prof. G. J. Connolly, Antigonish, N.S.; Prof. J. W. Mavor, Toronto (now of Union College, N.Y); Prof. Alexander Yachon, Laval University, Quebec, P.Q.; Dr. F. S. Jackson, Montreal, P. Q.; Miss E. Shanley, Montreal, P.Q.; Miss B. K. Mossop, London, Ont.; Dr. Louis Cross, Montreal, P.Q.; Miss J. McFarlane, Toronto, Ont.; Mr. A. H. Leim, Toronto, Ont.; Miss M. Anderson, Fredericton, N.B.; Dr. W. G. Savage, England; Mr. D. A. IMac-Kay, Ottawa, Ontario ;Professor Perry, Wolf, ville, N.S.
The Scientific Staff at Nanaimo, B.C., include fifteen (15) trained scientists:-Professor McLean Fraser, Nanaimo, B.C.; (Mrs. Fraser, Nanaimo, B.C.; Mr. Cyril Berkley, Nanaimo, B.C.; Mrs. Berkley, Nanaimo, B.C.; Prof. C. H. O'Donoghue, Winnipeg, Man; Mrs. O'Donoghue, Winnipeg, Man.; Dr. A. H. Hutchinson, Vancouver, B.C.; Miss I. Mounce, Vancouver, B.C.; Prof. J. J. R. McLeod, Toronto, Ont.; Mr. T. S. Oldroyd, Stanford, Cal.; Mrs. Oldroyd, Stanfard, Cal.; Prof. F. J. Lewis, Edmonton, Alta. ;Miss G. Tuttle, Edmonton, Alta.; Mr. George Henderson, Duncans, B.C.; Mrs. Henderson, Duncans, B.C.
Of these scientific workers Dr. Huntman and Dr. Fraser receive an annual salary from the board and certain other members are paid a small honorarium.
6. Yes.
9.	During the past year, amongst questions referred to the Biological Board for investigation and report, by the Fisheries Branch, are epidemics of disease at some of the whitefish and salmon hatcheries of the department; also causes of death of spawning salmon in reserve ponds. The problem of the deterioration of oyster beds; protection of cod in British Columbia waters; the life-history of the sardine in B.C.; sea-water densities at certain Atlantic ports for use in the navigation of vessels;
the bacteriology of canned lobsters, clams and various cured fishes especially finnan haddie, also the age and growth of food fishes, and the utilization of new kinds of fishes; also the growth and migrations of important commercial fish.
10.	Yes.
11.	Numerous reports have been issued by the Biological Board and its staff chiefly as follows:'-
(a^ Volumes of "Biological Contributions" covering a large series of subjects and issued at intervals.
(b)	Biological Bulletins especially on the marketing of new food fishes; these being in popular form and widely distributed.
(c)	Biological Leaflets dealing with bait-supplied for fishermen, introduction of new food fishes and other important matters.
(c) Special studies on life in the sea and in the inland waters, chiefly dealing with important fishes and forms of life.


SHIPBUILDING CONTRACTS.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough) :: 1.	Referring- to an item of expenditure described as steel for shipbuilding to be refunded by contractors, $3,283,965.05, found on page ZZ42 of the 4th volume of the Auditor General's report, has all this money been refunded?
2.	If so, when?


Hon. Mr. RALLANTYNE:: 1.	Not all, because the department has not finally settled with the builders for the ships for which the steel was purchased. The balance outstanding is $289,252.10.
2.	By deductions from progress payments during 1918-19, $861,430.80; 1919-20 $2,133,282.15.


CONSERVATION COMMISSION.
Mr. ETHIER:: 1.	Who is the deputy assistant to the Chairman of the Conservation Commission?
2.	How old is he?
3.	At what salary rate was he paid for the fiscal year 1919-20?
4.	What are the limits of the salary it is proposed to give him under the re-classification?
5.	What office, business, engineering or other experience did he have between leaving college and taking his present position?
6.	Has the Government satisfied itself that the increase in salary proposed for him is in the interests of economy and justified by the nature of his duties?


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	James White.
2.	57.
3.	$6,000.
4.	Mr. White's classification is the same as other deputy heads, namely "$4,200

and up," the "Rate to be determined by the Governor in Council."
5.	Mr. White has had a very wide experience in professional work extending over some 36 years.
When writing the Premier, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, under date October 27, 1909, the Chairman of the Commission, of Conservation requested the appointment of Mr. White as chief officer of the commission and added "I really do not know where we could look for another man who would be satisfactory."
1884 to 1894, Mr. White was engaged upon topographical and geological work on the staff of the Geological Survey of Canada;
1896-99, Geographer and Chief Draughtsman to the Geological Survey;
1899, appointed Chief Geographer of the Department of the Interior;
1901, compiled report on " Altitudes in Canada" which has saved many thousands of dollars during the railway construction;
1903, on Alaska Boundary Convention;
1906, * Completed Economic Atlas of Canada-the first comprehensive compilation of the resources of Canada ever undertaken;
1906,	elected full Member of the Canadian Society of Civil Engineers;
1907,	assisted in investigations respecting fast trans-Atlantic passenger steamships ("All-Red" Steamship Line);
From 1899 to 1909, Chief Geographer of the Department of the Interior and engaged in study of the resources of Canada and economic methods of the development of same;
1909, Mr. White was appointed Chief Officer of the Commission of Conservation;
1913, was given the rank of Deputy Minister.
6.	So far as known, no such increase has been proposed.


SASKATCHEWAN PENITENTIARY.
Mr. WHITE (Victoria):: 1.	What was the total number of prisoners serving time in the Saskatchewan penitentiary on January 1. 1920?
2.	How many officials are employed, and what was the cost of maintenance for the last fiscal year?


Rt. Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Prisoners January 1, 1920, 112.
2.	Permanent officers employed, March 31, 1920, 31.
Expenditure for maintenance of convicts, 1918-19 (last completed year), $10,807.77.


MANITOBA PENITENTIARY.
Mr. WHITE (Victoria):: 1.	What was the total number of prisoners serving time in the Manitoba penitentiary on January 1, 1920?
2.	How many officials are employed, and what was the cost of maintenance for the last fiscal
year?


Rt. Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Prisoners January 1, 1920, 108.
2.	Permanent officers employed, March 31, 1920, 33.
Expenditure for maintenance of convicts, 1918-19 (last completed year), $10,534.62.


REPARATION BY GERMANY-ALLIES CONFERENCE AT OSTEND.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, on the 18th instant the hon. member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. du Tremblay) asked me a question with regard to a special conference of the Allies to be held shortly at Ostend to consider the financial question affecting the Allies. The hon. gentleman desired to know if the Government had been invited to attend that conference and if Canada would have a representative at it, to which question I gave an answer in the affirmative. I find on looking at the official records, however, that we have no official notification of any conference at Ostend. The conference which I had in mind at the time of the hon. gentleman's question is one which is to be held at Spa of which we have been notified, and to which we have been asked to appoint a representative. In response to that request we have appointed Sir George Perley.


EMPIRE DAY ADJOURNMENT.
Air. C. W. PECK (Skeena):: Before the Orders of the Day are called may I inquire of the Government whether we are to have a holiday on Monday next, Empire Day,


Robert Laird Borden: It is proposed that we shall sit on May 24. We think that we could not better honour the day than to engage in our usual duties.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: I should like to say that we who come from the West have travelled a considerable distance and are kept constantly at Ottawa, but we are asked to adjourn on many occasions to celebrate Holy days. Now I think we should at least adjourn over Monday to honour the festival that is dedicated to our Empire.


Kt. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: The reason I had reached the conclusion which I have just stated to the House was that a great many hon. members, particularly those from the West, had expressed to me their intense desire that the work of the House should be proceeded with as rapidly as possible. Some hon. gentlemen have been urging me recently even to sit in the forenoons and on Saturdays, and I thought that in line with that strongly expressed desire we perhaps would he sufficiently honouring this highly important anniversary if we proceeded with our usual work on that day. If, however, it is the desire of the majority of hon. members that we should not sit on Monday, I can only say that I am just as ready as any one else tn take a holiday and will offer no personal objection.


Hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: At all events, I am prepared to leave the matter to the judgment of the House.


Mr. BELAND:: Question.


Hon. W. F. FIELDING:: I think that the 24th of May is an almost ancient holiday with us. Those of us who are no longer young will remember the 24th of May as a great holiday of the year, and I certainly trust that we are still going to have duly observed the Queen's birthday, as the day is known to us.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Rt. Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Since my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) appeals on the ground of age I am afraid I will have to back him up.


Mr. BUREAU:: Hear, hear, and we stand by you.


Robert Laird Borden: In view of the opinion expressed toy these hon. gentlemen, who have had a much longer experience than I in public life, I will move:
That when this House adjourns on Friday, the 21st, it stands adjourned until the Tuesday following at Three o'clock.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I -would point out that in the absence of the customary notice, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hear a "No." That
being the case, notice of motion will have to toe given. Do I understand that any hon, gentleman objects to the motion?


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Yes, I object to it.


Mr. MACKIE (Edmonton):: I desire to
protest against any protracted holiday. On Friday afternoon every week the House is left empty by members from Quebec and Ontario who go to their homes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Herbert John Mackie: The session
has been taken up largely with the useless discussion of unimportant matters. There are a number of us who are anxious to get back to our homes and who desire to proceed with the business as fast as possible.


Mr. HOCKEN:: I would suggest that we meet on Saturday and take a holiday on Monday. I entirely agree with the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) that as this is a traditional holiday in the Dominion of Canada it ought to be observed by Parliament as an example to the rest of the country. It seems to me that we have -wasted too many days upon which we might have worked, and it would toe better, if we cannot afford to take Monday, to sit on Saturday and make up for it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must again point out that unless objection is withdrawn the motion cannot toe put to the House. In the absence of notice unanimous consent is required.


Herbert John Mackie: I do not care to be the solitary voice in protest against this proposed holiday. If this holiday is going to be taken I will withdraw my protest, but I would like to see the House sit on Saturday and let us get ahead -with the business.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: No.


Robert Laird Borden: It can stand as a notice of motion.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Stands as a notice of
motion.


THE BUDGET.
[Stage Direction]
On the order for resuming, from Wednesday, May 19, the debate on the motion of Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. W. S. Fielding.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would point out to
the House that Rule 17C states that on Thursdays and Fridays when the Order of the Day is called for the House to resolve itself into Committee of Supply or of Ways and Means the Speaker shall leave the Chair without the question being put. I know that notwithstanding this rule, it is the desire of hon. members that the debate on the Budget should proceed. In order to facilitate public business it is desirable that the debate should be carried on over 'Thursday and Friday, and I simply point out that our continuing to-day without the Speaker leaving the Chair is not to be construed as a precedent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. IH. M. MOW AT (Parkdale):	Mr. Speaker, if a lawyer and, worse than that, a lawyer without a brief, or not much of a brief, may venture upon a domain which really should be reserved to those members who make or who sells things, if that be the case, I should like to offer a very few remarks in this very interesting debate. I naturally at the beginning would like to add a respectful word of praise to those which have been uttered with respect to the mariner in which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) delivered his speech on the financial affairs of the country. The Budget Speech was characterized particularly by two features. The first was courage and the second completeness. There were some who had doubt as to the capacity of the hon. gentleman to be the Minister of Finance, he not having had financial experience, to carry out the duties of his office but we who know' him for many years in our home town-as His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales might call it-knew that there would be no mistake made in his choice for that position because we knew his natural ability, his capacity for hard v'ork and his never failing capacity for taking pains. It does not surprise us, and the country as a whole will approve the method and material of his speech.
In discussing tariff matters it seems to me that the countrj, and those who take an interest in public business are much	in the same position as	that	ascribed	by Julius
Caesar to France, " Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres "-our country may be said to have three divisions in respect to its people; first, sensible business people, who want to see good business and as little dislocation as possible; second, free traders

in theory and, third, political propagandists and partisans who do not care much one w'ay or the other about the business of the country provided things can be steered in the direction of their own political preferences.
I believe that in the last two or three years we have not been able to understand tariff requirements for the reason that our country is so diversified and the business of one part differs so much from that in the other. There is no man probably in the country who is versed in all the requirements of the tariff. I was forcibly impressed with this when, last year or perhaps the year before, the battle raged a bit in the corridors and smoking rooms in regard to tariff changes. I was impressed writh this fact very much and on behalf of those who honestly felt that they did not understand all the features of the question or the contentions which were made by the respective parties and contestants, I suggested that we should choose two or three from each side who were w'ell versed in the matter, one from the standpoint of the manufacturer and business man, another from that class of business men who are farmers and another from those who are consumers. The suggestion that this little debate should take place, not in Parliament but elsewhere was received very agreeably, but I found that the interest flagged in what might have been a very interesting debate and which would have given us a much better understanding of the question at issue. I had come to the conclusion that a number of men on each side had not themselves made up their minds very clearly as to just what was needed by the country. It was forced upon my mind in regard to this debate and the stating of the case that one party was afraid and the other daren't.
Then again I learned at that time of some facts which made me still more doubtful as to the general knowledge of the people, and of members of Parliament on the subject. There is in my constituency a class who form the vast majority of the employees of the great works of the Massey-Harris Company, manufacturers of agricultural and other implements. Last year I was told by one of these employees that the Massey-Harris binder could be, and was sold in the Northwest Provinces at lower prices than the American machines were sold for. Well, this I confess was news to me because it had been continually dinned into my ears, as well as, the ears of others, that we were permitting the exploitation of

the Agrarian class by keeping up the price of these machines. However, I found there was no dispute as to this fact. The gentleman that I spoke to said, " Yes, that is true to some extent and the extent he meant was that the Massey-Harris machines were sold cheaper than American machines- considerably cheaper in some cases-in the Northwest as far west as Medicine Hat. At that time, arid at that place, on account of the longer railway haul, the prices naturally became greater; but the prices mentioned were the prices to distributing points in the case of the American machines, but the price of the Canadian machines was the price of the machine actually delivered at a man's own station nearby. This, of course, was an important fact which, if true, would change the opinion of many upon this question because the ordinary man in Canada does not want to see an injustice done to any class simply because another class happens to have the predominant voice in public affairs. If it is a fact it should be stated, and should be known by the people. Then, on the other hand I was told in the city of Toronto of a manufacturer-the man himself did not speak to me but a friend of his to whom he had just spoken did-who turns out a very large output of a certain kind of machinery and this manufacturer said that day-it was but a very few months ago-that if he had five per cent protection on his business it would be sufficient for him to carry on and prevent dumping from other countries at certain times. But the duty on the goods he manufactured was not five, but thirty-two and a half per cent. Now I was convinced from what I learned that this manufacturer did not- increase the price of his goods by the extra twenty-seven and a half per cent, because he was an honest, respectable individual, and he shrank from charging the people a price which would more than repay him for his investment and industry. But there you are:	We do not know how many of that
well disposed class of manufacturers there are, or how many take advantage of an unnecessarily excessive tariff to exploit the business for themselves. I am quite sure that when the 32i per cent duty was imposed it was necessary for that particular manufacturer, but now just as in the case of the Massey-Harris Company, it is not necessary. Therefore it is essential that the tariff should be revised by competent persons, possessing a knowledge of the wants of the whole country and not merely the wants of the people in a particular section. Accordingly, I hail with gladness the statement by the Minister of Finance, which seems to me of the most definite kind, that in August the board chosen to revise the tariff would commence its sittings. I believe that policy will be carried out, and I am strongly in favour of it being done before we undertake to tinker with the tariff, or cut down or raise duties, when we have not sufficient knowledge as to what the effect of such action will be.
The Massey-Harris people-at least the gentleman who spoke to me,-said that the reason the company now required the tariff was because at certain times of the year- according to the harvest period in different sections of the United States-the concerns in the adjoining republic would throw over their machines into this country and, at a sacrifice, undersell the Canadian manufacturers, because it would not pay the former to take those machines back to the places from which they were originally shipped, owing to the cost of the long haul that would be involved. Now, of course, that is something that our manufacturers certainly need to be protected against. If that is just a whimsical, selfish action on the part of our rivals in another country to undersell our manufacturers even at a loss, it is obvious to everybody possessing ordinary business sense, it seems to me, that we should protect our own people by some tariff restrictions. As the harvest moves eastward, or northward-on account of climatic changes-from Tennessee and the southern states, I was told there was a vast difference in the price of machines; and it would be very unfair to allow the exigencies of trade and manufacture in one country to interfere with the legitimate profits of manufacturers in another.
Again, I am glad that there is no present reduction, or dislocation, of the tariff by reason of the fact that I have a local interest in the matter, namely, that in the last dozen or score of years there have been established in the constituency that I represent hundreds of manufacturing concerns from the United States who have come here necessarily in order to carry on their business. They have brought thousands of employees of the very best kind; they have invested in these manufactures in Canada millions of dollars; and a sudden dislocation of the tariff, such as might he supposed to result from the adoption of the amendment of my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) would certainly disarrange business to a very large extent. In addition to that if tariff reductions were made suddenly it is not at all likely that the employees who

are engaged in these hundreds of manufactures although they have become friendly to the country, and have their homes here at the present time, would prefer to stay in Canada. The strong cords of home affection would doubtless lead them hack to the land from which they came if there was no reason for the further maintenance of the business with which they are at present associated here. For that reason I do not want to see a sudden closing up of this vast number of industrial concerns, and the sudden departure of so many employees. Therefore it will be understood by the members of the House, and it is perfectly natural, that I, at least, should object to -an unthought-out lowering of the tariff or a cutting off of duties just to suit a theory.
The political aspect of this question is interesting because it is so dramatic. The other night the ex-Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) stated his political creed on this matter, and I must say that to me it was surprising. For many years I was accustomed to follow that hon. gentleman, and to agree that what he did in the public interest was right; and during that time any changes in the tariff from the old national policy of our Conservative opponents did not seem to us to be very shocking. I was rather surprised at the confession that was made by my hon. friend. Perhaps because I was brougnt up in such a strict political school I thought it was very bad politics to admit anything which might be taken advantage of by one's opponents; but the confession having been made that the Liberal party of those days was really not a free trade party but a protectionist party, frees me from the secrecy that I would otherwise maintain, and permits me to say that I concur with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) who made this confession that the Liberals of those days did not, among themselves anyway, claim that they had materially reduced the protective policy of the country.
I suppose the reason was that they saw everything was going well and they did not want to make a change. But I am told, although I have not analysed the figures myself, that the net reduction in tariff from * the time the Liberal party came into power in 1896 until their defeat in 1911 was only about two and one-half per cent. So It cannot be charged against me that I am very much of a "change-about" if in sitting on this side of the House on account of other reasons I feel very little sense of guilt when I hear my leaders of those days now con-
fess that their views on fiscal matters are very similar to those held by my colleagues on this side of the House.
But another interesting feature in the debate last night will be taken notice of by the country at large-the speech made by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMas-ter), who I wish was in his seat now. That was a distressing incident. The hon. member on account of his abilities had been chosen to lead the attack from the financial standpoint, and in many respects he did it very ably. But he has been dispossessed .-I will not use such a word as discarded which I hear some hon. members suggest to me- he has been changed, no doubt as the result of consultation, because it was felt that something else had to be done than support the very strong views expressed by the hon. gentleman in former years in favour of free trade. So his speech last night was really in the nature of a swan song. He seemed to think that the times were out of joint-anyway his nose was out of joint-and the lack of that enthusiasm which formerly characterized his speeches on tariff matters was most noticeable. He did not repeat the methods of former years, which he then thought would be popular in certain sections of the country, by moving for the reduction of duties on certain specific articles. Consequently we must conclude that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House have discarded his arguments of last year, which they then supported very reluctantly, and have decided to take their cue from those whom they have set up as their champions in the present debate.
Last year we all remember my hon. friend took a supposed "consumer" into an upper chamber and proceeded to undress him. First he took off the consumer's boots and told us the duty on them; then his sox, his braces, his shirt-really it got to be such a delicate subject that had not the hon, gentleman noticed there were ladies in the gallery I am afraid he would have gone to the extremity of completely disrobing this poor consumer in order to tell us what duties he had had to pay upon his habiliments. But there is no disrobing scene this year, no attention is called to any particular article of wearing apparel, and although my hon. friend made an able -speech he did not talk with the vim that characterized him last year.
So we are left in this position: That the Government promises scientific revision of the tariff based upon information gathered from all over the country; while the amend-

ment asks for an immediate cutting down of certain duties. In other words, there is a difference of only two months between the two propositions before the House, and for my part I prefer a scientific revision rather than an arbitrary and immediate reduction, which, it seems to me, is proposed simply as a foundation for political speeches and appeals to the avarice of certain classes of the community.
Before I close, I think it is proper that I should say something in reply to the remarks made by the hon. member for Brome in relation to the Militia Estimates. He suggested that they should be cut down to the extent of $4,000,000. He did not know what those Estimates were for, what sort of training the money was to provide, or in what other way the money was to be utilized, but he desired to have that wholesale reduction made so that he could emphasize his view that pacificism is the proper belief for the people of this country.
I am quite sure that my hon. friend is not without a certain amount of political ambition, and in spite of the fact that his views are highly unpopular in many quarters, he does apparently hope to attract a class of people who will put the crown of leadership upon his brow. Well, there does not seem to be any one to dispute with him that leadership. If nay hon. friend desires by making those strong statements, which are based purely on the theory about the sinfulness and wickedness of preparing to defend one's country he will undoubtedly attract to his banner-if there is such a thing as a banner among people of that sort-all those who were deterrents to our war efforts, all those who funked in that time of national crisis, all those who were of no use to the country when she most needed their services. Well, if he desires to become the leader of that class and of all the "sissies" in the country, he is welcome to the honour and I think no one will be anxious to become his rival.
My hon. friend referred to the splendid war record of our soldiers. Undoubtedly they did well, and there were times when they were the spearhead of the Allied forces. But how much less mourning there would be in Canada to-day if the men who "carried on" at the front had had sufficient military training to give them the skill and caution which is so essential in warfare to save the lives of our fighters and to make their gallantry completely effective. They would have been entitled to just as much in the way of credit, just as much in the way of thanks from our people, but 164
they would have been trained to protect themselves, as unfortunately they actually were not, and as a result there would have been fewer mourning homes in Canada than there are at this. day. I hope that the mothers of Canada will not be led away by any such arguments as those put forward by my hon. friends who seem to think that simply because they desire to maintain a pacific attitude w'e shall be exempt from the attacks of others who are stronger and more aggressive. History show's that that is not a sound way of looking at it. My friends on the other side who come from French Canada applaud such sentiments to some extent, but they must remember that their forebears were not of that kind.


Jacques Bureau: Where is French Canada?


Mr. MOWAT:: I leave the geographical question to my hon. friend. History will tell them that in the early days Canada W'as preserved to their ancestors by the fact that they were always ready for defence; when the conflict came the French-Canadians were always better prepared than their English-speaking fellow colonists to ward off the attack and to attain victory. Even though hon. members may applaud these sentiments to which I refer, I know that that feeling does not exist in Lower Canada, in the province of Quebec. I know perfectly well that if hostile ships should sail up the St. Lawrence and the people of that province realized that they must protect themselves in order to avoid slavery for perhaps one hundred years, they would be just as keen upon the adoption of compulsory service as w'ould the people of any other province.
My hon. friend (Mr. McMaster) spoke also with a certain kind of sneer about Imperialism, which he linked with Chauvinism. He evidently feels that when a man thinks that it is wise to stay within the Empire; wise to keep on good terms with the Mother Country and with the sister dominions, that that involves a [DOT]certain vice, a wrong state of mind which ill effects the condition of Canada. Well, many of us do not agree with that. We think that our future and our happiness consist in the continued growth of the British Empire; and if it is called Imperialism to try to keep on friendly terms with the Mother Country and the sister dominions, then we are not at all ashamed of being Imperialists. But I do not know why the word "Imperialism" should have been used in the same sentence with the word



"Chauvinism," which means exaggerated nationalism. But we find that feeling existing; we see it in my hon. friend (Mr. Mc-Master) who is supposed to lead in that respect. I regret to have to allude to this, but I feel that it ought to be protested against; if it were allowed to go uncontradicted it would be a sort of admission that an improper kind of Imperialism really existed. The greatest Imperialist vve ever had in Canada was the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He was a sane Imperialist; he did not believe in subjecting Canada to the control of any other country, but he always endeavoured to maintain good relations between the component parts of the Empire Sir Wilfrid Laurier more than any other person gave a start to the good feeling between the Mother Country and Canada, which resulted not only in friendship but in material prosperity, by the granting of the Imperial preference, despite the protests of strong protectionists, and despite a strong national feeling in some quarters. In doing that he did the greatest thing for Canada, in my opinion, that was ever done. Sir Wilfrid Laurier remained in power a long time, as undisputed head of the country, but it must be remembered that at times he was not able to appreciate or to understand the sentiment of the country. When he was in favour of maintaining good relations between Canada and the Mother *Country and the sister dominions; when ,he was in favour of those ideas which we Imperialists say we have, he was successful; but when on two occasions he failed to appreciate what was felt by Canada as a whole on these subjects, he was disastrously defeated. If this misrepresentation is to go on, why, we cannot help it; for my part, I desire to state unequivocally where I stand, and if that will help anybody else in the protest against the sneering at Imperialism, then I believe I have at least done something in favour of my country.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton and Victoria):: will buy our goods you must buy them yourself. You must buy our cheese, our wheat, our butter, our manufactured goods and everything else in order to keep up prices." What did they do? They passed through this Parliament a vote of $276,000,000 against the persistent opposition of this side of the House and they used that monej in buying goods in this country and sending them out of the country to destroy competition and to keep up prices against the poor people whom they were professing to help. What happened? Proof of what I am saying appears in the evidence of the hon. member for Leeds (Sir Thomas White) gi^en before a commission and reported in the blue-book. That blue-book was passed around and I received a copy of it. The evidence of the hon. gentleman begins at page 84 and continues to page 106. In the evidence the hon. gentleman states that this money was furnished by this House and the country and was expended in buying goods for the following countries:
Great Britain	$170,000,000
Belgium	 25,000,000
France	 2 o, 000,0 00
Roumania	 25,000,000
Greece	 25,000,000
Italy	 6,000,000
In all $276,000,000 was extracted from the pockets of the poor people of this country in order to keep up prices against themselves. I know of nothing that is more iniquitous or less consistent with the idea that we are being given from day to day that this Government is sweating, blood in order to help these poor men. Nothing of the kind is being done to-day.
Is it to be expected that the working classes, the ordinary rank and file, will have confidence in any Government which, will because they have the power, come down to the Houses of Parliament and take from the pockets of these poor people, who are depending on us to protect them, this enormous sum of money?
If the Government had kept control of it themselves it would not have been so bad, but what has happened? They appointed a commission of their Tory friends and those who are manufacturers and producers in this country. They called them together and said: "Go to it; divide this $276,000,000 between yourselves ; there will be no competition." Nothing could be more in contravention of the principles of responsible government than to step in and spend this money for no other purpose than to keep up high prices and to make it impossible for poor people to get the benefit 
of that competition in trade which would otherwise have been given to them.
In the further observations that I wish to make, it comes to me now to say something about the subject of Government ownership and Government management. In the line of Government management or expenditure we have this $276,000,000 for which we have no substantial return. I do not think it was even mentioned as an asset by the Minister of Finance in his Budget Speech. It may have been; I have not been able to read it all but I followed the hon. gentleman very closely while he was speaking the other day and I do not recall that anything was said about this $276,000,000 which we have so lavishly expended on these foreign countries-foreign to us, all except Great Britain-and for which we have nothing of a substantial character to show in return. I was going on to say, Sir, that we should cease from this idea of monopolizing everything in the hands of the Government. As we do put that monopoly in the hands of the Government we decrease and break down the ambition of ordinary people, having the right, the ambition and the power, to do things for themselves and who should not be interfered with by the monopolistic operations of Government. I do not know but that I had occasion before to quote in this House a philosophic statement made by Lord Macaulay a long time ago. I think this statement was made by him in 1830:
" Our rulers will best promote the improvement of the nation by strictly confining themselves to their own legitimate duties, by leaving capital to find its most lucrative course, commodities their fair price, industry and intelligence their natural reward, idleness and folly their natural punishment, by maintaining peace, by defending property, by diminishing the price of law. and by observing strict economy in every department of the State. Let, the Government do this; the people will assuredly do the rest."
That, Sir, was the advice given to the British people so long ago as the year 1830. I find, Sir, that that idea is not dead; I believe that it is a British idea. I find that recently Sir Archibald Williamson, P.O., was addressing a gathering of business men in London, and I have here his views as reported in one of the newspapers. It was put up to him that the Government should cease from interfering with business in England, that they should give a free hand to the people to look after their own affairs, and his answer to that statement was as follows:
At the earliest possible moment that that emergency legislation could be brought to an end, it must be brought to an end, and at the

earliest possible moment they could finish with Government control they must do so. He would only remind them that when the Government brought about certain restrictions it was not through folly or lack of consideration. They did not do that without'going into the deepest consideration and argument of the matter. Those who condemned them were not aware of all the .details of the case before the Government. He made bold to say that there was not one member of the Government who did not desire to get rid of the control which had been necessary owing to the war at the first opportunity. They could not spend five years in such a war with a complete interruption of all commercial life and economic processes and then find themselves able to resume at once pre-war life. If they looked through the Government restrictions in the recent Parliamentary Bill carefully they would see there was not one which any of the members of that association would not think necessary and useful. He observed with pleasure that the chief articles of their association stood for the value of individual enterprise.
The whole history of their country, which had been the greatest country commercially in the history of the world, but whose commercial successes had not weakened its idealism for high effort, had built up its achievements on the knowledge that exceptional individual enterprise and ability deserved exceptional individual reward. They must sweep away the crazy doctrines and muddy philosophers which told them that the best way to achieve the best results was to work on the aggregate of all the citizens, where the reward of the thrifty man and the idle man would be the same. Ever since civilization raised its head there had never been a community in the world which had prospered on that system, but greatness had always been achieved by following the exactly opposite system. Speaking for the Government, he could say they had definitely set their faces against these doctrines.
It was the view of the Government that the great businesses and commercial enterprises of this country could better be carried on by private individuals for the good of the whole in the manner which had been customary in the past. When the Government was met by threats from any body of men, that they would adopt the course of action which could only recommend itself to them because they were in a minority, the Government would never give way to them -never. That was the touchstone of their ability to apply democratic doctrines as they understood them. The nation was going to govern itself through a Parliament cltosen by itself; and it was for the nation alone to decide those great business Questions and array themselves against all those who threatened to impose the coercion of a privileged class.
That, Sir, is the idea given 'by this distinguished member of the British Government, Sir Archibald Williamson He carries out, although not perhaps familiar with the doctrine established and enunciated by Lord Macaulay, the idea that runs through the minds of the British people; and to-day in England they are getting clear, as rapidly as possible, of the notion that there should be any governmental interference with the enterprise of the British people. If it is good enough for the people in that
country it should be good enough in Canada, and this Government should give way at the earliest possible moment and carry out what is suggested here by Sir Archibald Williamson-that the people of Great Britain shall select their own men for their own purposes, and that a Parliament shall be established in Great Britain at the earliest possible moment that shall properly represent the interests of the country as expressed by the freewill of the people. Let. me remind this Government that they are not on very stable ground. Let me remind them that the position they occupy is not a very proud one. From the Atlantic to the Pacific they have received notice to quit, and still they are not quitting. They are over-holding tenants, and they are determined to sit until the sheriff or the bailiff turns them out. Let me remind my right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden) of the many notices to quit that he has received. He received one from Prince county, in Prince Edward Island. He read it and put it away, no doubt marking the date on the hack of it. He received notice from Carleton and Victoria, in the province of New Brunswick. In that case also the same process was gone through and the notice was pigeon-holed. From Kamouraska in the province of Quebec he received a very emphatic notice to quit. From the division of St. James in the great city of Montreal he received notice to quit; and, no doubt, instructed his clerk to put it in the same pigeon-hole. Then, Quebec East has most emphatically sent- notice, in the person of my hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe) that this Government-as far as the people of that constituency wrere concerned-had reached far past the end of their tether, and the sooner they left the better. Then we come to Timiskaming, and we have the distinguished stalwart from that county here as a notice to quit which has been already served upon the Government. I had the distinction of being up in that constituency myself. I was not trying to help my hon. friend (Mr. McDonald) who is now a member, I was trying to help in the election of another man, but one thing I did tell the people was this: The Government'-not by any will or wish of their own but sadly enough owing to death-had given them the opportunity to speak their mind, and to state whether they approved of the Government or not. If they were not satisfied with the administration of the present Government it was their duty to elect a member who would pronounce definitely along the lines of that dissatisfac-

tion, and although they did not send my man to Parliament


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: My hon. friend got notice to quit.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: -I was simply preaching this doctrine: I was talking to a free people in a free country, and I said, "Whatever you do, do not send any one down to Ottawa who will support this Government." They took my advice on this score, and served notice to quit upon the Government. Then we go farther West and find in the county of Assiniboia-


An hon. MEMBER:: You forget North
Ontario.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 
George Green Foster: Does my hon.
friend's history teach him whether or not the boy was actually eaten in the end? I think he escaped.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Now, Mr. Speaker, I
wish to discuss the tariff, a subject which my hon. friends on the other side of the House say we are not dealing with in that careful and logical manner which its importance demands. All I have to say to those hon. gentlemen is that as far back as 1893 the Liberal party established a tariff policy, they have been following it ever since, and during the fifteen years that they had the opportunity to put it in actual operation they brought such an era of prosperity to our people as was never enjoyed before and has never been enjoyed since. We were placed in power in 1896 on our tariff policy; we have not changed that policy since.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I hear some hon. gentleman say "hear, hear." But that is the fact. We came into power in 1896 with the avowed purpose of giving the best possible fiscal conditions to this country, making goods free wherever we could do so, and giving help to industries where help was required. In that way, and without erecting a high Chinese tariff wall, we succeeded under the leadership of our great chief, the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, supported by the Hon. Mr. Fielding and others, in giving the country an entirely satisfactory government. What we are saying to the people to-day is "You had a trial of us for fifteen years and you know what we are. We have a good many of the same men yet in our party, including the hon. gent'eman who was our financial leader during^ those fifteen years. If you are satisfied with the way in which we handled the affairs of this country for the fifteen years we were in

power, we ask you to give us another trial, and we assure you that the good faith, the ability and the integrity that characterized our former administration will be continued in our efforts to bring back this country to the same prosperous condition which it enjoyed during our fifteen years in office."
I submit, Sir, that no person who cares for the development of this country will ever lay down any hard and fast rule to continue any policy, however good, without change no matter what the conditions may be. We have no intention of erecting a high tariff wall. We are prepared to carry on as we did before, to deal with circumstances as they arise, and, we hope, with the same successful results which attended our administration in days gone by.
Can it be said for the edification of those who think that we still adhere to the old National Policy that we stole the clothes off the Tory party in 1896, and that we were only adjusting those clothes to suit ourselves year by year? I imagine, Sir, that in 1896 no man in the House of Commons of that day understood the National Police better than the late Right Hon. Sir Charles Tupper, who was then the leader of the Opposition. Undoubtedly he would recognize the National Policy just as well as any of his contemporaries, and if the Fielding policy which Mr. Fielding introduced in his Budget Speech in 1897 was the same old National Policy, no person would have been more ready to take advantage of the situation than the right hon. leader of the Opposition of that day, aru point out that while Mr. Laurier~as he then was-and his friends were promising tariff changes, yet their Budget proposals failed to give effect to that promise and merely constituted an adoption of the tariff policy of the Tory party. But what- did he say? I invite hon. gentlemen to look at page 1258 of Hansard for the year 1897, where they will find that the Right Hon. Sir Charles Tupper speaking on the Budget that was then introduced by Mr. Fielding, said:
I confess, sir, that I listened with the most profound astonishment to the speech delivered by the hon. Minister of Finance, Mr. Fielding. I did not suppose it possible, whether in one section of the Empire or another, for a great Parliament such as that which the Dominion of Canada possesses to have presented for its consideration a Bill of such entirely illegal and unconstitutional character. I have no hesitation in saying that you will search the history of Parliamentary Government throughout the British Empire in vain to find any parallel for the position in which we find ourselves in relation to the Budget speech of the hon. Minister of Finance.
Again, at page 1262, in the same volume of Hansard, on the same date, the same right hon. gentleman is reported as follows:
Now I listened to 'this most remarkable address with the most profound astonishment because it violates the -most plain, clearly-understood1, and well-known laws governing the Parliament of Canada. It was in antagonism with the constitution of the country, and in violation of everything that hon. gentlemen on either Bide of the House had a right to expect from a Minister of Finance.
At page 1291 of the same volume he is reported as saying:
The result is that this tariff goes into operation, and the hon. gentleman knows that the industries of this country are already paralyzed in consequence, while hon. members gloat, vindictively gloat, over the destruction of Canadian industries. I was reading the wail, the sorrowful wail, of those industries in the Montreal Gazette, where one manufacturer after another declared that their industries were ruined, that their mills must close, and that they saw staring them in the face a return to the deplorable state of things that existed when the hon. gentleman who last addressed the House was in charge of the fiscal policy of this country. I say that a deeper wrong was never inflicted upon Canada.
That, Sir, is the pronouncement of the gentleman who was leading the Tory Opposition, Who was at one time Minister of Finance and at another time Prime Minister of this country. He understood the National Policy; if he was not its father, he was certainly posing as its godfather. I must ask hon. gentlemen, therefore, to believe that the National Policy to which he referred was not the National Policy ,which was introduced by my good friend .(Mr. Fielding) on that occasion.
Now, Sir, what has happened? We had the application of that policy for fifteen years. I Wish to repeat and to bring to the touchstone of Toryism at its best the judgment which they passed upon the application of that Bill which Hon. Mr. Fielding introduced at that time, and also the results which that Bill, when enacted into law brought to this country. The new Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) in the Tory administration which came into power in 1911 looked oveT the scene, looked over the results, anxious to find fault, if he could; anxious to show that the financing of the Liberals had been bad; anxious to show that they had not kept faith with the people. He was brought here to curse the Grits; lie was forced to bless them. This is What he said:
Our Dominion continues to be the land of hope and promise to the homeseeker. During the last year, as before shown, our immigra-

tion from Europe and the United States reached an average of nearly a thousand a day, bringing their capital, their intelligence, and their energy to assist in the great task of developing the resources of Canada, and building up her nationality.	,
Much has been said in the past with which I am in accord as to the selection of immigration as far as possible with an eye to the quality and character of our future citizenship. Notwithstanding the large stream of immigration, labour conditions are good, and extreme poverty from any reason other than incapacity or direct misfortune is hardly known.
Under the favourable conditions which I have described, and with every prospect for their continuance, the future of Canada looks bright indeed. In the enjoyment of peace, plenty, and prosperity, her energetic, loyal and patriotic people look forward with hope and expectation to an ever great and greater future.
That, Sir, is the testimony of the leading finance authority of the Tory party when they came to pass judgment upon our handling of the Fielding tariff for fifteen years under Liberal administration. That is their testimony, and we are prepared to place that before the people of this country and say to them: that is absolutely true; perhaps it is not the whole truth, because the Finance Minister (Sir Thomas White) could have gone much further in showing the grandeur, the immensity of the growth of Canada during those fifteen years. But he said enough to justify the administration of the country's affairs during that period. We say to the people: To-day we hold the same policy; we have the same ideas; we act in the same good faith; put us back in power and the same good conditions will come to you that were brought to you before. That, Sir, is the position which we occupy, that is what we say to the Canadian people.
As to our policy generally, we have standard ideas for the good of the people as set forth at the convention held in Ottawa last year. We stand by the resolutions adopted at that convention. That is our policy; that is our standard. We are willing that our opponents shall criticise us in respect to our living up to these high standards that we have set for ourselves; that they shall measure us by what we have done on forpier occasions.
I do not think, Sir, that it is necessary for me to put on record any of the resolutions that were adopted at that convention. The resolution respecting the tariff was put on record yesterday; it has been read in the press of this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and I shall not detain the House by putting it on Hansard now. But I wish to read the tariff portion of the Farmers' platform to show the striking similar-
[Mr. McKenzie.!
ity between our own policy as enunciated at the convention and the policy as put forward in this booklet which I received a few days ago. I quote:
Whereas Canada is now confronted with a huge national war debt and other greatly increased financial obligations, which can be most readily and effectively reduced by the development of our natural resources, chief of which is agricultural lands;
And whereas it is desirable that an agricultural career should be made attractive to our returned soldiers and the large anticipated immigration, and owing to the fact that this can best be accomplished by the development of a national policy which will reduce to a minimum the cost of living and the cost of production;
And whereas the War has revealed the amazing financial strength of Great Britain, which has enabled her to finance, not only her own part in the struggle, but also to assist in financing her Allies to the extent of hundreds of millions of pounds, this enviable position being due to the free trade policy which has enabled her to draw her supplies freely from every quarter of the globe and consequently to undersell her competitors on the world's market, and because this policy has not only been profitable to Great Britain, but has greatly strengthened the bonds of Empire by facilitating trade between the Motherland and her Overseas Dominions-we believe that the best interests of the Empire and of Canada would be served by reciprocal action on the part of Canada through gradual reductions of the tariff on British imports, having for its objects closer union and a better understanding between Canada and the Motherland and at the same time bring about a great reduction in the cost of living to our Canadian people.
That is practically word for word the policy of the Liberal party; and I was pleased to find that the Farmers' party, the Labour party and the Liberal party are almost, if not altogether, unanimous on the idea of making Canada a good country to live in, a free country, letting nobody have any special privileges, but keeping all on an equal footing, and saying that while we are anxious to assist the manufacturers just the same as every other Canadian who is a good honest man trying to make an honest living, it is our intention to let nobody take shelter behind an unduly high stone wall, behind which he can defy competition from the outside and sell shoddy goods at high prices to the people of Canada. Our intention is to give every honest man in this country a square deal and an opportunity of making a success, but at the same time, he must produce the goods and sell them to the people at reasonable prices and to the best advantage of those who live in the country. That is the idea which we entertain and which we intend to carry out, and the people of this country will, I am sure, hear with delight that before long this Government will make up their minds to be manly and

strong and will come to the conclusion at long last that their tenure of office has been too long and that the proper thing for them to do is to give the people of this country an opportunity either to confirm them in their seats, if the people so desire, or on the other hand, to send here men who will have the absolute confidence oi the nation from the Atlantic to the Pacific.


Mr. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: penditure. My hon. friend dismissed that; he tried to impress the House and the country with the idea that there was a deficit of about $400,000,000, and that is a most unfair, unreasonable and inaccurate application of the figures.
Then, he made some criticisms of another expenditure. He said that the Minister of Finance and this Government had given to foreign countries credits amounting to $226,000,000; or, to use his own words, that the Government said to the manufacturers: "Here is $226,000,000; divide it amongst you," and that the Government
5 p.m. was dipping down into the pockets of the people of Canada to keep up the high prices. Can the House imagine a more unjust, unfair statement than that? What are the facts? The facts are these. The Government, realizing the necessity of maintaining exchange abroad and the importance of supporting the starving population of Europe, found it necessary to supply some credits in this country in order to ship out the foodstuffs required in Europe for the starving populations, and, in addition to that, to stimulate our foreign trade by sending manufactured articles abroad. My hon. friend stated that this item was not shown in the figures brought dc-wn by -the Minister of Finance the other day; that there was evidently no record of this amount of $226,000,000. He said: It does not show as an asset. In the figures brought down by the Minister of Finance and placed on Hansard the day-before yesterday, not ancient history-if he had read the Budget they could not have escaped his attention-are the following:
Imperial Government	$171,710,168.19
Other governments	 34,336,117.75
Then there is a miscellaneous item after said: It does not show as an asset. In the record, included in the statement of the assets of the country, this enormous sum he speaks of. Now, I turn briefly for a moment to the wisdom or otherwise of these advances. Here we are in Canada with a rarge quantity of goods that we are able to sell to the world. What is the condition of affairs throughout the world to-day? Mr. Speaker, the subject has been gone over ,so often that one hesitates even to refer to it foi fear of wearying one's hearers, but in the face of the extravagant statements of the hon. gentleman, who was himself a leader for a year of a large party, it is necessary sometimes to harp back to facts that are known, to use his own words, to every school boy in the country. There is Europe, devastated and largely incapable

of producing, while its credits are generally destroyed. We in Canada have goods to sell and desire to open up new markets and get a share of foreign trade. What -s more wise than that, so far as we are able to do so, we should supply credits to such countries as may be reasonably safe in the matter of repayment? To whom did we extend credits?-to Great Britain, Belgium, Greece and a few other countries, and in every c.-se it was a wise and judicious provision on the part of the Minister of Finance. There is only one matter for regret in connection with this question, and that is that it is difficult for Canada to extend further credits to these countries. I think it is unfortunate that we are unable to do so. My hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) .also, apparently with much pleasure to himself, read what he called the death warrant of the Government, calling upon them to resign and go to the country, and serving upon them a series of notices. If the hon. gentleman will remember, he referred to one trip he made to the constituency of Timiskaming. He said:	"I made a
speech up there and I told the people there that whatever they did they should vote against the Government candidate. They might vote for a Farmer or for a Liberal, but whatever they did they should not vote for this pernicious Government." I presume that is the only speech he made there, but he took a great deal of credit to himself in the matter. Now, what was the result on polling day? In the town in which he delivered that address we find that the Government candidate received a vote of practically two to one against his opponent; and I think that if we desired to be at all selfish, we might express the regret that we did not invite the hon. gentleman to speak at other places in that constituency. If my hon. friend can take any solace out of the results let him. .
Last year the hon. member was in the position of leader of the Opposition, and how well we remember, in , the Victoria Museum, his standing in his place and holding out the light in the window to the Liberal-Unionists on this side. The latch string was hanging out through the door, and the hon. gentleman drew a homely picture inviting the Liberal-Unionists to come back. He has no word this year for those gentlemen; he turns to my hon. friends the farmers from the prairies and holds out a winsome invitation to them to come in and join his ranks. Why, he says, " there is no difference between our policies; our policy is just the same as yours;

we are all out for a reduction in the tariff;" but he says, " we must stand pat where we were in 1896." How my hon. friend will justify himself before the country in standing pat as he was in .1896 I do not know. I notice when he said that, that his chest expanded and his voice increased in volume, but when he was talking to my hon. friends opposite his 'brow clouded and his voice was tremulous and I could scarcely catch what he said. He was not so sure of himself on that occasion, but he followed the lead given by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) and decided that he must hand out some sort of invitation, and therefore he gave the invitation to his farmer friends to come in and join in his policy.
Now, I should like to proceed to review briefly the attitude of my hon. friends opposite as given to the Bouse and the country in speeches delivered by the leading critics of the Opposition, the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's and the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). I think it is proper and desirable that we should know how hon. gentlemen opposite stand on this subject, because after all the way we judge as to the value of our hon. friends' criticisms is to measure them up and see whether or not the opinions expressed by their side all agree. If they do not agree then these hon. gentlemen can hardly expect us to accept them. My hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's, who for fifteen years was Minister of Finance of this country and who speaks with a great deal of experience and authority, yesterday I think spoke with intense sincerity; and out of his years of wisdom, out of that fifteen years of ripe experience in the position of Minister of Finance, and from his life long experience as a Liberal, he gave his verdict on free trade. We cannot doubt for a moment that he had studied the question. He is an intelligent .man; he is a learned man, the editor of a large financial journal which speaks for the financial interests of the country to a large extent; and his words are worthy of consideration. .Speaking of free trade, he said, after stating what it was:
That is free trade, but it is quite possible that the best of principles may be carried too far; it is quite possible that men who believe in the general principle of free trade must recognize that there are conditions under which it cannot be applied.
My hon. friend from Brome has something else to say in the same debate, and on the same issue. Speaking from the
same benches as the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen s, he cites a book written
by Mr. Keynese on why Europe may become free trade territory, and says:
That is the policy which the Liberal party aim at in the future. That is the policy which I wish to see adopted in this country.
On the one hand you have a learned and experienced leader on the other side declaring that it is impracticable and unwise to apply the principles of an abstract theory in practice; and on the other hand you have a pseudo-leader declaring that it is his intention to stand four square on the great principles of free trade, of which by the way I shall have something to say later on.
Then we have my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's enunciating some other doctrines -which certainly are in absolute contradiction of the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite as expressed in this and in every preceding similar debate in recent years. My hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) took the full credit and responsibility of the dumping clause, an arbitrary, definite, protective measure and a measure that I do not for one moment criticise. We ought to bear in mind that hon. gentlemen who pretend to a certain element in the country that they are the friends and the advocates of the policy of free trade have no right to stand upon this doctrine which has been enunciated by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's.
But that is not all. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) takes a step forward and he makes another rather extraordinary statement, a statement that I, with all my Toryism, such as it is, would hesitate to make in this House. He says that not only is he in favour of a measure of protection but that the peculiar brand of protection he is in favour of is the bonus rather than the customs tariff. Bonuses and bounties are classified by all economists as constituting the most extreme measure of protection. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's to quote his words, says:
I would willingly help an infant industry, and as between protection and bounties__
Mark his words !
I think I would prefer the bounties.
That is from the lips of the leading financial critic of the Opposition, the hon. gentleman who himself moved the amendment to the resolution which I shall deal with later. Again I invite the attention of the House to a strange contradiction in

the attitude of his colleague who followed him a few hours afterwards and who referred to the statement of the Minister of Finance dealing with infant industries and the necessity of not killing or annihilating them by careless or reckless legislation. The hon. member for Brorne (Mr. McMas-ter) goes on to say:
He speaks of legitimate industries. What are legitimate industries in this country?
Bearing in mind the attitude of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen s, this is what he says:
I will answer that. Legitimate industries are those which can stand on their own feet, and pay their own way, and Which do not require to be bonused by the taxpayers of this country.
On the one hand you have one leader (Mr. Fielding) stating that he prefers bounties and bonuses in protecting infant industries and on the other hand you have his colleague, (Mr. McMaster) ousted temporarily I believe, from the position of chief financial critic, saying that he is absolutely opposed to bonuses and bounties.
The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's not only was in favour of bonuses and bounties but he was in favour of mergers as well. Again I am not differing from him. I would pause to say t-hat in my estimation, and this has been my opinion for a great many years, so called mergers, combines or whatever terms you like, or large combinations of capital as applied to industry, constitute a wise and economical method of handling industry provided there is reasonable governmental restrictions on their operations so that they cannot impose their power upon the country in an oppressive manner. In so far as the operation is concerned I believe it is a sound and economical method of industrial control. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's comes out flatfooted for the merger. Can we not hear the former member for Edmonton, the Hon. Frank Oliver, from his place in this House, year after year, as I and many hon. members have heard him, hounding the Government because he said that it was, supporting trusts, mergers and combines? Today, here is his colleague (Hon. Mr. Fielding) who sat with him for fifteen years in the same Cabinet chamber standing foursquare for trusts, mergers and combines. That is the condition that we see amongst hon. gentlemen opposite. In the light of that attitude of mind, in the light of these statements made by these hon. gentlemen, /what construction are we to 
put upon the amendment which is before the House?
The hon. member for Brorne made the statement that he delighted to take Great Britain as an example and lead in his financial policy. In view of the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite in moving this amendment, I am going to invite the attention of the House for a moment to the last British Budget delivered only a few weeks ago by the Right Hon. Austen Chamberlain whom my hon. friend delights to follow. What was done in that Budget in the way of taxes? Compare Mr. Austen Chamberlain's action with that of our Minister of Finance. The British Government brought down their Budget and increased the taxes in connection with the postal service-we have a Bill on the table of this House to increase the charges in connection with the postal service. The British Government increased the taxes in connection with telegraphs and telephones. That is a Government institution over there and we as a government are not so deeply interested here in telegraphs and telephones. They increased the charge for .motor licenses, which service is controlled by the Imperial Government-we are imposing a new and enlarged tax upon motors in this country. I am sorry that my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) is not in his seat but I invite the attention of his colleagues, because this is 'included in their platform, to the fact that the British Government repealed the land values tax. They increased the taxes on spirits, beer, wine and cigars. One would think that they had been reading the proposals of the Minister of Finance of Canada. They enlarged the stamp taxes increasing the tax on cheques, notes, share transfers, receipts, etc. They made no increase in the income tax. We have made an increase in the income tax. They also have a business [profits tax, as we have. They have imposed a new tax on corporations in Great Britain. We last year put a tax on corporations, which has been in operation for a year and is being continued. These are new methods of taxation in Great Britain practically every one of which is included in the Budget before us to-day. Will my hon. friends opposite, in the few days to come, stand up in their places and advocate the complete wiping out of these proposals?
The hon. member for Brorne made a proposal also that I think should be reviewed very briefly because it should not pass without being taken notice of. He

stated yesterday that there certainly should be a direct levy on war wealth. He means a direct levy against capital. Is he justified in standing on this ground? He told the House that a Royal Commission in Great Britain had passed upon the question and that a Bill is about to be brought in. As a matter of fact Mr. Speaker, he is a long way ahead of the pace set in Great Britain in that regard. A commission, or a committee of the House, is, or has been, sitting on this question. They have not yet reported, .and the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in his Budget Speech that he was not yet certain whether or not the matter would be taken up in the way of legislation. But there is a vast difference between a levy on capital in Great Britain and a levy on capital in Canada. The difference, which is fundamental, is this:	Capital	in Great Britain is very
largely of a liquid character. Great Britain has been for centuries the banker of the world, and there is concentrated in that country a great deal of liquid capital. During the war many individuals, for their firms, corporations and so forth, made huge profits, which came to them in the form of what I call liquid wealth. What is the condition of Canada? Nearly every firm, nearly every individual, that made money to any degree out of the war, have invested their profits in the enlargement of their plants. Investment was made by placing all their profits back in their business, enlarging their plants; and in very few cases -as far as I have been able to discover, and I have given the matter a great deal of thought-has there been any very large increase in what you might call liquid wealth. Now let us see? How would you assess or take this wealth? My hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) was very silent on the question-he did not discuss it. He gave no indication that he had given it a moment's thought; he simply propounded it as a thing that would appeal to the popular ear. The taking of the war wealth ! How would you take the war wealth? Let us get down to something concrete! Here is, we will say, a large factory like the Poison Iron Works in Toronto, or one of the large packing concerns. These people made money, a certain amount of money during the war. But what occurred? Those who were engaged, for instance, in the manufacture of munitions, in almost every case put that money into new machinery, or extensions of plant, and there it is to-day. If we were to assess their wealth, so called, the only way we could secure any portion
of it would be by taking a portion of the plant, or forcing a liquidation of the plant. I will give a concrete illustration. I know of a firm-a saw-mill, a lumber company- with a capital of $100,000. They borrowed from the bank, $200,000 which made their invested and operating capital $300,000. Now when aeroplane spruce was being cut in large quantities this firm made a net profit of $100,000. You might say that was 100 per cent profit on the capital, and that they should pay a large sum into the treasury of the country. As a matter of fact, under the existing law, that firm is assessed at $64,000. Now, what is the result? The firm is faced with this condition: They have borrowed from the bank the last dollar of credit they could secure, $200,000. They are asked to pay $64,000 into the exchequer. They have not got it. Where is the $100,000? It is in extended plant, a new wharf, an increase of their machinery, the extension of buildings, and an increase of stock being carried in their yard. In order to pay the tax levy, or the assessment on their wealth direct, they would be compelled to close down and liquidate by the selling of a portion of their plant. I merely state that to indicate the difficulties facing those who take any stock in the proposal so lightly suggested by my hon. friend from Brome.
Now let me turn for a moment or two to the amendment, moved by my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding), and I think hon. gentlemen on both sides should give it the closest attention. What is the significance of this amendment, what does it mean? My hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) has moved that "all the words after, that (in the resolution) be struck out." Now what does that mean? It means this: That all the schedules, that all the proposed taxes, will be cut off supposing the amendment carries. There will be no such taxation imposed, and this revenue will not be raised-it will be abandoned. The amendment condemns the action of the Government in proposing this taxation, and repudiates the whole resolution submitted by the Minister of Finance. In other words, to make the amendment more direct and practical, hon. gentlemen opposite propose to strike out the ten per cent tax on luxuries, the fifteen per cent tax on automobiles, the twenty per cent tax on gramophones, etc., the twenty per cent tax on playing cards, the thirty per cent tax on patent medicines, etc., the $2 a gallon on liquors, the thirty cents a gallon on ale and beer, the $3 on champagne

They propose to strike out the provision for one per cent on sales; to strike out the increased tax on bills of exchange and promissory notes, and the tax on the transfer of.shares. They go even further-they prevent the imposition of an increased income tax. They stop the repeal of the seven and a half per cent customs war tax, and they prevent the putting on the free list of books and appliances for the blind. That is what the amendment means-it means a complete and absolute repudiation of the total proposals of the Government for the raising of revenue in this country during the coming year.
Now, what do my hon. friends opposite offer in place of that? This I submit, Sir, is a logical and proper question to ask. Not one single word has dropped from the lips of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, the hon. member for iBrome, or the hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria, to say what they propose to put in place of the Government's taxation proposals. My hon. friends repudiate and reject all the proposals of the Government, and this is what they propose to adopt in their place: They express a pious wish in the amendment that substantial reductions of the burden of customs taxation may be brought about. Now let us consider that for a moment. Here we are in Canada faced by an enormous expenditure. What does that expenditure consist of? An enormous sum for interest on our war debt; a huge sum for pensions; large amounts of money for land settlement; and then there is the cost of carrying on the ordinary business of the country. These are the purposes for which the Government is asking money from Parliament. We must get the money, and hon. gentlemen opposite know that themselves. The Finance Minister shows that he will he able to raise a large portion of this money-what he proposes will meet almost the total of the ordinary expendi tures-but he points out that in the fall there is accruing due somef $70,000,000 ol short term loans, and those of us who have given the matter any consideration at all know that next year, and the following year, 1922-3, there are other sums coming due. Is it not only wise but prudent on our part to make adequate provision to meet these short term loans? We must do so, or else go into the market and borrow with the result of enlarging our debt, increasing our burdens, and following a line of action that is not being adopted, I am glad to say, by any other country in the world of the standing of Canada. So, Sir, 
my hon. friends opposite, by their amendment-and I wish to make this absolutely clear; they know it, I presume, but apparently are ignoring it-repudiate every, proposal that has been submitted for the raising of this money. If my hon. friends opposite vote for that amendment, as possibly they will, then they repudiate the very measures that they advocate in theii own platform, a direct tax of one kind or another, and I shall deal with that a moment later. They not only do that, but they fail to submit one single suggestion of a concrete character to take the place of these enormous reductions that must come about. Is that the whole story? It is not, for there is this much further: They propose a drastic and a definite reduction of customs duty. What does that mean? Can they reduce the customs duty without reducing the revenue? Our revenue from that source is in the neighbourhood of $159,000,000. If they make any tariff reduction that is worth while-30 per cent would not be an unreasonable guess at what they are aiming at-it would mean $50,000,000 additional reduction. And not a single word as to what source of revenue is to take its place.
I invite hon. gentleman opposite to give consideration to this amendment, I invite them to give consideration to the absolute and imperative necessity of carrying on during this year and meeting some of the obligations to which I have referred. Surely we can fight out the points of differences on methods without absolutely abandoning the needs of the country; surely, Sir, we could produce to this House some suggestions which might be different from these proposals without rejecting the latter in toto; surely there is some merit in the proposals of the Government. I hold that those proposals, as far as we have been able to judge, have been received throughout the country with general approval, and I doubt if my hon. friends will get very much credit from the people in their efforts-which will fail -to land the country into the lamentable position which their amendment would produce if adopted.
We have heard a great deal during this debate about the Government not keeping faith in connection with tariff reform.- I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am independent enough and radical enough to criticise the Government if I consider it is derelict in. its duty-and I have done it when it has not perhaps resulted in any particular good to myself. But let us look at this thing fairly. Last year the right hon.

member for Leeds (Sir Thomas White), then Finance Minister, made a statement in 'his Budget Speech-a carefully prepared statement, in which he said, among other things:
Within a year conditions will, I hope, have become stabilized so as to permit of a general revision of the tariff.
And he wound up by saying:
My own view is that it might well commence in the fall.
My hon. friends opposite charge the exFinance Minister with having broken faith, with having made a promise which has not been carried out. But that statement of his was based on conditions becoming stabilized. Now, I ask hon. gentlemen seriously if ever there was a time in the history of the world when conditions were less stable than they are to-day-or than they were in January and February, because they have, I am glad to say, improved a little since? Was there ever a time in the history of this country, even during the Crimean War before Confederation, when the conditions were less stable than they were in the months of January and February? Exchange was so demoralized that the whole world was temporarily in a panic. The only thing that saved us from a serious panic in the United States and Canada was the fact that the Old Land, with its usual buoyancy, was able to ship to New York large quantities of gold in the last few months, somewhat temporarily, at least, stabilizing conditions.
But would any hon. gentleman suggest, seriously that this was a time to reduce the tariff? How could we reduce it, looking at it from a practicable standpoint? Could we take up the schedules covering the imports from the United States under the present abnormal conditions with exchange against us; or the schedules which naturally cover importations from France, or from Belgium, or from any of the other European countries where the discount against them ranges from 60 to as high as 90 per cent? While I am strongly in favour of a revision of the tariff, I think the Government would have been derelict in its duty had it precipitated a revision under those conditions. Not only would it have been derelict in its duty, Sir, but it would have attempted an almost impassible task.
My hon. friend from Cape Breton North (Mr. McKenzie) quoted a statement made in 1911 in connection with a Bill then before the House to create a permanent tariff commission. That Bill was killed in 165
the Senate,-not by supporters of this Government or of the Government to -which this succeeded-, it was killed by his Liberal friends in that Chamber at the instigation of his friends in this House. He referred to that, and then he said that we had gone for eight years since and no effort had been made to appoint a permanent tariff commission. I again invite the House to give that statement consideration. Has there been any day from the 4th of August, 1914, down to the present time when a revision of the tariff was a practical measure? What would my hon. friends have said if in the year 1918, or 1917, or 1916, or even last year, this Government had stated to the House, "We propose to revise the tariff," Why, they would have told the Government Very plainly that it was out of its mind to attempt such a thing under the circumstances. There was not a day from the 4th of August, 1914, dowm to the present time wdien it v'as a reasonable proposition to attempt a revision of the tariff; and I very much doubt whether it will be possible within the next eight or ten months.
I am firmly of the opinion that the Government should surround itself with tariff experts. I know they have some already who are second to none, but I think they might perhaps enlarge this staff a little, and secure, as soon as conditions are reasonably stabilized, the fullest information. I think the Government could go this far: they could prepare the machinery which would undertake this investigation, so that when conditions become stabilized in the next five or six months this machinery could be put into motion and we might have some results later on. But for the Government to have undertaken this proposal at any time up to the present moment would have been unwise, impractical and injudicious.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I desire to address myself briefly to what is known as the Farmers' platform. I approach this question not with any desire to be hypercritical of my hon. friends, but rather to draw attention to some striking things in connection with this so-called platform. First, however, I wish to say a few words to the members of that party in this House, which I trust they will receive in the spirit in which I tender them. In that platform they make a rather extraordinary and .sweeping statement, and I invite my hon. friends to consider this statement in the light of the additional experience, perhaps, which they now have. I am sorry the hon.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I wish to go a step further in connection with this Farmers' platform. I find in it this clause:
That all corporations engaged in the manufacture of products protected by the customs

tariff lie obliged to publish annually comprehensive and accurate statements of their earnings.
I have no particular objection to a requirement of that kind. But what I do object to, and what I would impress upon my hon. friends who advance this platform, is this, that it is decidedly unfair, undemocratic and unjust to limit the publication of comprehensive and accurate statements of earnings to the manufacturers. Why the manufacturers more than any one else? Why should the manufacturers any more, for instance, than an operator of a grain elevator, or a large wholesale implement dealer, a coal dealer, a dealer in flour, in lumber or in other commodities commonly used by the people, be required to do this? Why should not these, as well as the manufacturers of the country, publish comprehensive and detailed statements of their earnings? In substantiation of this, and again to point out to my hon. friends that they are not coming before the House with clean hands in this regard, I wish to draw to the attention of the House some figures in connection with the operations of the United Grain Growers and subsidiary companies. There is a company, the stock of which is owned and controlled by the United Grain Growers, known as the Grain Export Company. It is a New York corporation and all of it3 stock is owned by the United Grain Growers' Company. This Grain Export Company has an authorized capital of $250,000, but its records show, and the sworn statement of Mr. Rice Jones, the secretary of the company, also shows, that the company had a paid-up capital of $100,000 and the balance of $150,000 was paid out of stock dividends. At this point I pause to bring to the attention of the House another clause in the platform of my friends, a clause which is very interesting in the light of this method of financial manipulation:
That in levying and collecting the business profits tax the Dominion Government should insist that it be absolutely upon the basis of the actual cash invested in the business and that no considerations be allowed for what is popularly known as watered stock.


John Flaws Reid: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend says,
"Hear, hear," and I agree wdth him absolutely. But the point I am making is this: If those gentlemen are going to include in their platform a statement of that kind, if in all their speeches, in the speech of the president of the company on the occasion of its annual meeting, and in the public speeches of my hon. friend from Marquette
fMr. Stevens.]
(Mr. Crerar), they are going to condemn the practice of creating capital which does not represent cash invested, then I say we are justified in reviewing the operations of some of their own companies. Now, I bring this particular company to the attention of the House. What is its financial history? Briefly this. It has an authorized capital of $250,000, of which $100,000 was paid up in cash and $150,000 was paid in the form of stock dividends. Had that been a concern in which, let us say, my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) or some other hon. member representing a manufacturing company was concerned, that would have been considered watered stock, and it would have been condemned as an unreasonable and unfair imposition on the public. It would be charged against the manufacturer as being an extortion from the people. But that is not all. I find in the sworn statement of the secretary the following:
In addition to the stock dividend of $150,000 this company paid to the parent company $300,000 in cash.
That is pretty fair earning. As a matter of fact, in one year's operation this Grain Export Company, with an actual cash investment of $100,000, made $500,000 of profit. I repeat to you, Sir, and I draw the fact to the attention of hon. members, that if we were dealing now with a manufacturing company some hon. gentlemen would have ample ground for denouncing all manner of crookedness, extortion and exploitation. I am not laying this to the charge of my hon. friends, but I simply say that if they ars going to attack the manufacturing interests of the country we will view their own operations and see whether or not the same general principles of finance are applied to their own business, and applied in a more successful manner than in the case of any manufacturing concern I know of. That being so, then I say to my hon. friends that they should withdraw the aspersions contained in their platform and in their speeches against the manufacturers.
I proceed a step further. I intimated this afternoon that my hon. friends opposite came to Ottawa-I think it was in 1910- and presented resolutions demanding that it be made a criminal offence to deal in futures on the grain exchange. We find this Grain Export Company, a subsidiary of the United Grain Growers, making a loss in one year of $245,000, a loss, according to the sworn statement o,f Mr. Rice Jones, due to the lack of sufficient margin in their gambling estimate of the matter. I am using

their own words that are crystallized into resolutions by these very gentlemen, and not my words. But in spite of that loss they succeeded in turning over to the parent company $300,000, and in paying a stock dividend of $150,000, and in addition to that, a year ago, they had $150,000 or $300,000 in .reserve-the secretary said he knew it was $150,000, and possibly it was $300,000. I say to hon. gentlemen who make charges of unreasonable profits against the whole World and particularly against the manufacturing interests, that we cannot find, in the wildest romance of manufacturing in this country, a more extreme type of profiteering than that.
Let us turn to another phase of their operations. I refer hon. members to a report laid on the table of the House last year to which I have already referred, namely, the report of Price, Waterhouse and Company, the auditors in connection with the elevators at the head of the Lakes. What do we find there? We find our friends, some of them in the House, operating a grain elevator leased from the Canadian Pacific Railway upon which they pay a rent equal to about six per cent, or seven per cent now, on cost of construction. On the operation of that elevator in one year they made a net profit of 211 per cent. Deducting from that profit of 211 per cent the losses they made on margins in speculating on grain that did not belong to them, it left 187 per cent. Why do I say speculating in grain that did not belong to them? This is a point which I wish the House to understand clearly. I could not emphasize it last year when I tried to place before the House the iniquitous character of this and other proceedings. It is contrary to an Act passed by this Parliament for any terminal elevator company at the head of the Lakes to deal in any grain overages in its care. The grain that is there is not their grain; they are not allowed to buy a bushel of grain; it is grain in transit; it is grain in trust. But the terminal elevators used to sell, in July or before the end of August, the anticipated overages. Once in a while they would get caught. One year the elevator of my hon. friends got caught and made one loss of, I think, $23,000 and another of a smaller amount. You may scrutinize with the utmost care the operations of my hon. friends in business and you will not find one single iota of deviation from the general methods of doing business by those whom they previously condemned. In issuing a pamphlet, and in subscribing to a platform of this kind,
they have no right to condemn those other operators when they are themselves indulging, infinitely more successfully, in the same practices and the same methods.
Going on a step farther, and coming to the parent company. This is a co-operative company. It was the father of this whole movement and the parent of this platform. That company has paid ten per cent since 1911, and it has an accumulated surplus of $1,700,000. It may be said, and it will be said if anybody chooses to reply to my remarks to-night, that there is a premium on the stock. According again to the sworn evidence of Mr. Rice-Jones a large portion of this premium on stock amounting to $400,000 was paid out in commissions for the sale of stock. That might reduce the $1,700,000 by $200,000, but after that is done you still have $1,500,000 of a surplus. That is a very handsome surplus. But that is not all of the story. The balance of the story is that in addition to the main operations of this concern there are branches such as the Grain Growers" Guide, a perfectly legitimate enterprise,, that make losses and have made losses for years and years. Those losses are hidden by and absorbed in the general prosperity of the company. The point in all this is that our hon. friends in advancing to this House and to the country this platform should delete all references carrying insinuations of corruption and insincerity on the part of their fellow-citizens, guilty as they are of exactly the same methods and practices but with enhanced success so far as results are concerned.
I find another plank in this platform; that in reference to the publication of election campaign fund contributions. I have no objection to that, I think it is perfectly proper. If I am not mistaken the Bill before the House is very clear on that point. It was introduced by this Government and we are supporting it. But let us examine this question of campaign funds. From one end of this country to the other speeches have been made. I have under my hand reports of speeches by the hon. the leader of the National Progressive party, the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) in which he makes charges similar to those in the platform in referring to corruption in connection -with campaign funds.
Let me carry my hon. friends back in history about fifty or sixty years. The first lieutenant of the hon. member for Marquette is the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) who, I am exceedingly sorrv to learn, is sick and in the hospital; I know

carelessly from the purely revenue standpoint. And so my hon. friends will find that in this Budget we are pretty well meeting the whole of this platform.
Now I wish to say a few words in connection with the Wheat Board. One criticism I have to make of the Wheat Board is that it is duplicating another board already in existence, namely the Grain Commission. I am not suggesting that in time of war it was not wise to appoint the Wheat Board, because under war conditions, under the exigencies of war, you are bound to do things which perhaps upon maturer thought in times of peace would not be done. The Wheat Board was appointed in war time. And now the war is over. The function of the Wheat Board is to market the wheat of Canada. I hold that it is an expensive luxury. I 'hold that if you are going to market wheat through governmental agencies, the Grain Commission can perform that function. If they are unable to do it-if the personnel of the Grain Commission is such that they do not understand the business of marketing this grain, then the commission might be enlarged for that purpose. But in connection with the .Wheat Board I find a situation that might well occupy the attention of the Government. For instance, the secretary, Mr. Young, is receiving $6,000 a year from the board. He is receiving an additional salary from the Lake Shippers' Clearance Association of $10,000. He is a pretty well paid official. I do not think, Sir, that he can successfully serve both masters; I do not think he can give to the country that impartial service wdiich such a commission, almost of a sacred character in its functions and duties if properly conceived, should give. Therefore I think the Government might well at a very early date consider the abolition of this board. It is a costly experiment and has served its purpose. The test is this: Did the Wheat Board lower the cost of marketing our wheat? I have gone into the case with considerable care, and I submit that it has not done so. I believe it was the intention of the Government that it should effect an economy in that direction. What are the facts? The bank interest and exchange in connection with wheat transactions is- exactly the same as it used to be; insurance- marine and fire-and storage, are still there under the Wheat Board as under private operation; freight, by land and by water is exactly the same. Now in regard to wheat that is sold direct to a country elevator, mark you, the Wheat Board has provided that there shall be a

margin allowed of from five to ten cents a bushel. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that these figures convey to hon. members an adequate idea of the magnitude of this margin. I am told by those who understand the business .and are familiar with its every angle that it means an average of between seven and eight cents a bushel on all the wheat that is handled in the West and, in fact, in the East too, I believe. Thalt margin is allowed where wheat is bought by the country elevators, and it is an extraordinary allowance. And, let it be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Riddell, the deputy chairman of the board, is the manager of three hundred of those country elevators, and that other interests represented on that board have under their direction another four or five hunderd. That hoard provides that the elevator carrying wheat through shall be paid from a certain period allowed by the Act-I think 15 days, which is covered by the first charge-until the wheat reaches its* destination at the head of the Lakes.


John Flaws Reid: Might I ask the hon. member a question? Do I understand him to say that the company handling the wheat is allowed storage charges until the wheat i.s landed at the head of the Lakes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, Mr. Speaker; and I am absolutely accurate in my statement. I might just point out to my hon. friend from Mackenzie that very rarely will he give place to a member who desires to ask a question, and I trust that he will appreciate 'the fact that I, and other members, have granted that favour. I would inform him that whenever he chooses to ask me any questions he will always find me willing to give him the floor, and I would suggest to him that that is a little item in the ethics of this House which it is always desirable to observe.
My statement, I reiterate, is absolutely accurate, and for the benefit of my hon. friend I will repeat it: That this Wheat Board, composed of gentlemen who largely control the line elevators of the prairies to the number of 800 or a thousand, provides a special storage charge, which is calculated from I think, the 15-day allowance in the original charge for handling until the wheat is landed at its point of destination at the head of the Lakes or at the mill, wherever it may be. And let me say this, Sir, that thalt storage, including the 8 cents a bushel I have referred to, has resulted in enormous earnings to these line elevators. My hon. friends talk about protect-

.ing the interests of the farmers of the prairies. Why, Sir, they are to-day hoodwinking those farmers. The farmers of the prairies do not realize the extent to which they are paying for this Co-operative Association, but the time has about arrived when they should know the actual facts in dollars and cents.
Now, on consigned wheat, mark you, going direct to the Grain Board-a transaction in which no other persons are doing *anything-that consigned 'wheat being shipped direct from the elevator to the Grain Board at the head of the Lakes, forsooth there comes in a one-cent brokerage charge, which goes to another party. Then *we find that the brokers at Winnipeg are taken care of, they receive t'heir fees just the same as if they were doing the business. We also find that the shippers and the exporters have their fees protected in the regulations of the Wheat Board-all at the expense of the farmer. I suppose my hon. friend will in a few minutes cite one of these items of ^ of a cent a bushel as a small item. But when we add these & and & and 1 cent, and 2 cents and 8 cents, in the aggregate they soon mount to a very handsome sum; .and then when we add to this 6 or 8 per cent which is deducted at the head of the Lakes and paid to the elevators of these gentlemen, the total amounts to a very considerable sum. Then they have provided for fees to the Lake Shippers' Clearance Association, of which forsooth this $6,000 and $10,000 secretary is an officer-one and the same individual-and is on this Wheat Board to see that the members of his association get their proper allowance. I do not say this in an unkind or critical spirit, but I suggest very seriously to the Government that it would be very desirable to have the audited statements and all other papers of the Wheat Board laid on the Table so that some of us, at any rate, might have an opportunity of examining them.
I find there is only one decrease-brokerage, reduced from * of a cent to & of a cent a bushel. I want to be perfectly frank, that is the only decrease that has been secured by the Wheat Export Board over private operation.
Now, I want to point out that the need of this Wheat Board passed with the signing of the Armistice. It never did lower the cost of handling our wheat; on the contrary, it enhanced that cost. I hold that after the term of this Wheat Board expires next August the marketing of our wheat should be left to the ordinary course of
trade. There is where I believe in the freedom of trade. And I would just like to pause a moment to give my hon. friend opposite a short dissertation on free trade.
The name free trade is an utter misnomer. Free trade started with the efforts of individuals centuries ago to get rid of embarrassing trade control. It was in the Hanseatic League and the free cities of Europe that freedom of trade first saw the light of day. The manufacturers," and shippers, and importers of those free cities found they were interfered with by the petty restrictions of feudal barons and despotic governments,' and they started a movement for the freedom of trade. In the early part of last century that movement developed in Great Britain into an attempt to free trade from the embarrassing restrictions which then hampered it. And so with regard to the Wheat Export Board, I would say to the House and to the Government, I believe absolutely in freeing our wheat business from this control. I believe absolutely in the freeing of our wheat business from control at this time. It may be said that I am giving voice to the opinion of an amateur. I refer the House to a recent report of one of the members of the Imperial Government who stated to the British House that after the most careful thought and study it was believed that the control of foodstuffs, the control of the purchase of wheat, had increased the cost of living, had increased the cost of food, and had in no way contributed to the welfare of the people at large.
Now, a word or two of a general character. This is a time when we should look facts in the face. There is no. use in blinding our eye.s to the fact that we have an enormous public debt. I think I can give the House a few figures which are somewhat startling. I was pleased when the Minister of Finance stated frankly to the House that it was useless to follow the custom that had been followed by the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) and by every other Finance Minister, that of giving the net debt. What we want to know is what our liabilities to the public are, and when we know that, we shall know what we are required to pay. As near as I can figure it from the statements which I have -secured, we have a debt of $2,500,000,000. That is what we have to take care of. We may have assets in addition to those which I have deducted from the gross debt, but they are not convertible. In fact, Sir, to this figure ought to be added the circulation of the country, because, after all, the Do-


Mr. L. J. GAUTHIER (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville):: Mr. Speaker, I consider it a
privilege to have the honour of replying to the speech to which we have just listened, and which has been kept to the height of the high plane which this debate has maintained since its commencement, I will do my utmost not to lower that plane, and although I may differ from hon. gentlemen on the other side, I wish my Temarks t-o be taken as they are offered, and in the same spirit which animates me in making them.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Stevens) has divided his remarks into three parts, one of vdiich was a lecture that he thought it his duty to give to the Farmers' group. It is not my intention to interfere in that regard ; I will let the representatives of the Farmers' group settle their differences with the hon. gentleman. But may I be permitted to state that I was amazed to hear the hon. gentleman stating that the United Farmers were profiteers, and that their association was, in the question of overages, committing an illegal act. If 9 p.im. this be true, how is it that the Government supported by my hon. friend allows the United Farmers to be profiteers without taking them to task? And how is it that these United Farmers committing illegalities are permitted to continue committing illegalities and that the Government, which is responsible for those illegalities, still has the support of my hon.

friend? His position in this regard is not logical.
My hon. friend has taken a great deal of pains to show to the House and to the country that there was a contradiction between the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) and the hon. member for Brome (Mr. MeMaster). Any man belonging to a party and speaking in his individual name has a right to give his individual opinion; but if he belongs to a party and if he wishes to remain in that party, he must adhere to the platform of that party. The Liberal party held a convention in August of last year; they propounded their policy, and the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's and the hon. member for Brome, when they speak for the Liberal party, must adhere to that party's platform as propounded at that convention. But it is strange to me that my hon. friends would go to such pains to find contradictions in the policy propounded by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, when he himself declared to the House and to the country that he is going to support this Government which has no policy at all. What is the policy of the Government? Last year they promised the House and the country that there would be a general investigation into the affairs of the country and that revision of the tariff would take place. The hon. gentleman replies by saying: It is very fortunate for this country that this investigation was not held, because in the month of January the affairs of the world were more unstable than they ever were before. But he adds that he is glad to see that actually the situation in world affairs is now on a sounder basis. This is a poor answer. The pledge was given by the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) during the first session of last year, and if the investigation had been carried on according to that promise, there would have been no necessity for the Government to do anything at the present session-at a time when, in the judgment of my hon. friend, the affairs of the world are in a better condition-other than to bring down legislation based on that investigation. But if the Government have had no policy-and the proof that they have no policy is that the ex-Minister of Finance promised last year that an investigation would be held and that a revision of the tariff would take place-in what situation are we this year? We are in actually the same situation. The new Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) says to the House: We are going to hold an investigation. Why? Because every one admits that

there is a feeling of unrest in this country as in the rest of the world; that something must be done. If my hon. friend is as pious and good as he wants us to be, I wonder why he supports a Government which, with their policy, have been unable to cure the unrest or to foster the best interests of this country? They have a policy of doing nothing; they have a policy of promising investigations, and all the while the unrest keeps on growing and growing every year. That is not extraordinary. Do you believe, Sir, that business men are going to put their money into undertakings when they do not know "what the policy of this Government will be? If you wish to have stability in this country, you must give to the trade, to the industries of Canada the assurance that they will not be disturbed. Otherwise they will stand back and wait, and when they wait the workingmen of this country are suffering more and more every day under the high cost of living; the people are suffering by reason of the taxation which is being imposed upon them and which is increasing year by year, and the capitalists of the country are afraid of the 'Government because they realize that although the Government are making a great cry that they have the confidence of the people, they have not that confidence as a matter of fact, and furthermore they do not deserve to have it, as I shall try to prove in the course of my remarks.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Stevens) says that the Wheat Board ought to be abolished because it was created as a war measure. Well, Sir, if that argument can be properly applied to the Wheat Board it is eminently more fitting to apply to the Government. They *were elected to win the w^ar and they pretend that they won the war, but after having won it they cannot restore peace in this country; and I really believe that as the Wheat Board ought to be abolished, so too should the Government be put out of existence, or at least, they should have a renewal of their mandate only if the people are willing to renew it. I believe that one fact that will not be disputed by any thinking person is this, that confidence is one of the basic essentials of human life; if you want to succeed you must have confidence in yourself, you must have confidence in your associates. But confidence, to be worth anything, must be reciprocal in character. And when I hear ministers saying that they trust the people, that have confidence in the people, I know but too well that they cannot add that they know that the people have confidence in them.

What have this Government done to win the confidence of the people? What have they done in their legislation, in their administration, and in the official declarations of the ministers of the Crown, and of their partisans? I believe that on this question of confidence we can derive some good lessons from the late war. The Allies won the war because there was mutual confidence between the commanding officer and the common soldier, and this confidence, mutual and reciprocal, created a unity of action. So long as we were not united in action, so long as unity had not been secured by any confidence of the Allies in one another, we must admit, our cause met with no great successes. Sir, this war has been marvellous from more than one standpoint. There is not a man, there is not an army corps, there is not a country that can rightly boast that the winning of the war was due to any single individual or nation. It was due to the concerted action of all of the Allies. The Allies were so united that they secured unity of action, which came from the confidence they had in one another. If I were permitted, I could give ar few examples to show what confidence did in the late war. When at the Battle of Mons the small "contemptible army" of Great Britain, as it -was named by the German war lords, sustained the orders and carried the fight in that murderous and atrocious retreat, every one admitted that that army was composed of heroes. But there are other examples. These British soldiers, having the fullest confidence in their commanding officers, remained at their posts because they knew that their officers would not permit a single sacrifice that was not necessary for the glory of the British arms. Take the example of the Argonne. When the Germans decided to crush Verdun, with the hope that the defeat of Verdun would mean the defeat of France before Great Britain could put forth all her effort to help France and before the United States could come to the rescue, what saved the situation? When the forts of Douaimont and Vaux were crumbling under the raging fire of the German artillery the French soldiers offered themselves as a living barrier to stem the wave of the German army, and they won the day because they had confidence in their commanding officers. It is the same in every phase of life. Now that the war is over every country must look to its own salvation, and it is the duty of a government to come to the rescue and save the situation. What has this Government done in
legislation and in administration, and what are the official declarations of its ministers?


Mr. McMASTER:: They forbade bees to eat sugar.


Louis Joseph Gauthier: Every nation of the
world is now seriously grappling with the problems which have been created by the war. Everybody knows I am not supporting the Government, but although I am opposing them I will not charge them with every possible crime, I want to give them credit whenever they deserve it. I am not going to charge them with being responsible, as some say they are, for the inflation of the Canadian currency. The problem of the present hour is the question of inflation. Some economists claim that inflation of currency has created the high cost of living. I believe with the Rt. Hon. Reginald McKenna and Professor Nicholson, of Edinburgh university, that instead of the high cost of living being the result of the inflation of currency inflation of currency is the cause of the high cost of living. This Government has done, on the question of the inflation of currency, as Governments have done all over the world.
After war was declared, and when, during forty-two months, 20,000,000 people were called to the colours, the rest of the world had to produce the food for these 20,000,000 men and the population back of the battle front. The men who responded to the call were the flower of the -world's manhood. During the long period of peace the world had accumulated an enormous reserve of goods of all kinds. When the soldiers went to the front they ceased to produce and they consumed ten, fifteen, or twenty times more than they were producing when they were at their work. We had to replace them by old men, young men, and women, all of whom have done their duty, but there was a loss of raw material, there was a loss of time, there was a higher cost of production. There was a higher cost of production also because the purchasing agents of Europe were coming to this country and buying at any price at all all kinds of goods that we could supply. All that we could produce was bought in advance at higher and higher prices. The consumer at home had to pay these new prices. Inflation of the cost of living brought about inflation of wages. The working men could not live on the wages they were earning before the war and wage scales had to be readjusted.

wages, to currency and to credit; but really the minister himself has exhibited the worst symptoms of that disease because he has given to the House and to the country in an official statement which can be found on page 2557 of unrevised edition of Hansard, what I would designate as the inflation of the gold reserve. I understood that wages could be inflated, that paper could be inflated, that credit could be inflated; but I never thought before that the gold reserve of Canada could be inflated.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Who said it was?


Louis Joseph Gauthier: The Minister of Finance.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where is he?


Louis Joseph Gauthier: I do not know. What brought this to my attention, Sir, was. a statement on the financial page of the Montreal Gazette of Monday last, where it was shown that the gold holdings of Canada were in the proportion of approximately 32 per cent of its currency. The next day I was amazed to hear the Minister of Finance state to the House and to the country that .our gold reserve was 43 per cent. I have much confidence in the Minister of Finance -and I have much confidence in the Montreal Gazette. That journal to my mind could not have printed that statement without the knowledge, officially or officiously, of the Government. I look again at the public documents, and here is what I find [DOT]as stated by the Minister of Finance: That our Dominion note currency on the 31st of March, 1920, was $311,932,791; ourgoldhold-ings at the same date were $100,286,280. Therefore, according to his own figures, our gold holdings would be approximately as the Gazette states, 32 per cent. But by what operation did the Minister of Finance put the figure at 43 per cent? He calculated the gold reserve of the banks with the gold holdings in the central gold reserves. But, first of all, from the total circulation of the paper money of the Dominion and of the banks he had taken off $97,700,000, the statement reading, " Less Dominion notes held in Central Gold Reserves, $97,700,000." I admit, Sir, that according to financiers our gold reserve should be at least 40 per cent. But when we take in the whole issue of our paper currency, we must balance it with the total gold reserves held by the Government, and nothing else. Why should the Government Compute the gold held by the banks as security for their own note issue so as to depreciate the difference between their circulation and their gold holdings? Furthermore, why should the Government be al-

lowed to take out of its note issue $97,700,000 of paper money and deposit it in the Central Gold Reserves?
Well, Sir, if such a statement as that can be published broadcast by the Minister of Finance, I say that the Government do not trust the people. Why do they not state our financial position frankly? At the time of the war there was no secret made of it; every one knew' what v'as the situation. Every time the Government appealed to the people, whether to secure men, whether to. secure credit, or whether to secure endorsement of certain legislation, they got everything they asked for. The Government had received a mandate to w'in the war, and in execution of that mandate they could ask for anything they wanted, and they were sure to get it, for the people had confidence in them. Why not proceed in the same manner to-day and tell the people frankly what is our position? Every one knows that we have an inflated currency; every one know's that it will have to be deflated; and before assuming the heavy burden of taxation that the Government intend to put on the shoulders of the people the situation should be frankly stated to the country. And it is not good management on the part of the present Administration to curtail the gold deposits of our banks in an attempt to show that our inflated currency is less inflated than it really is.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take up so much time, and I will conclude with these few words. I would say to the Government: Stop the profiteers and you will strike at the root of the high cost of living; there is no other way. You cannot instantly deflate your currency because it would mean ruin to the country; but strike .at. the very root of the, . evil and you will cure the unrest which that evil engenders. I say again: Reduce the tariff and you will help to reduce the cost of living. The policy followed by this Administration has had the result of creating an unrest which continues to grow every day and every week, and this policy is proved by its results to be wrong. Change it; reduce the tariff, and you will reduce the cost of living. Be prepared to recall your inflated currency according to a gradual and progressive method and come back as soon as you can to a sound gold basis. Trust the people, lead them wisely and firmly; enact legislation which will appeal to them; give to this country that management of national affairs which will appeal to the electors, and you will regain their confidence. It is the bounden duty of

the Government to secure peace, and to command the confidence of the people, and this you cannot do if you continue your present policy of legislation and administration and of making official declarations which at sight do not correspond with the official figures that are given to the country.
Mr. JOHN H. BURNHAM (Peterborough West):	Mr. Speaker, in speaking well of
the Budget I should like also, 'before going on, to refer in as complimentary a way as possible to the speech of the bon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Gauthier) and that of the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens). The member for St. Hyacinthe, on rising, expressed a desire to maintain the high plane reached by the member for Vancouver. I can assure him that before he sat down he had reached that high plane; he furnished us with as much argument as any man possibly could furnish hostile to this admirable Budget.
It .must 'be remembered, in criticizing this Government for having no policy, that their policy for years has been that of war, and on the return of peace it was necessary for them to formulate a peace policy. This peace policy has been formulated and announced in the Budget, and it is the most admirable combination of protection and free trade that a man could possibly wish for. I do not think that any Budget that was ever announced in the Parliament of Canada has secured the commendation and praise from the people of Canada that this one has. Everybody was curious to know how in the face of the universal high cost of living and general taxation the Minister of Finance would secure the necessary revenue through taxes to carry on; but he has surprised us all, not only by securing the necessary taxes, but by doing it in such an easy, offhand manner that it is doubtful if it will be felt at all by the people. No more skilful handling of finances could, in my humble judgment, possibly be imagined, and every praise should be accorded to the minister for his most admirable work.
The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville has told us that there is serious' unrest in the country. He did not compare Canada with other countries; if he had done so he would have seen, and we all would have seen, that the unrest in Canada was as nothing in comparison with the unrest in other countries, Britain and the United States included. If we had had in proportion to population the fatal clashes between the people and the military that have occurred in the United States, there 166
would have been calls and cries for special sessions and the very winds of Heaven would have been called to the aid of the Opposition, as has so frequently been the case in their denunciation of this Government. But in Canada there has been nothing worthy of the name, except, perhaps, a little centre of disturbance here and there. The unrest in this country is a minimum; certainly a minimum in comparison with the unrest in other countries. In all fairness, due allowance should be made for that, and observations and criticism should be tempered accordingly.
This Budget has the honour of giving birth to the newest and biggest party that ever arose in Canada, the People's party of Canada. We have the Liberal party, the Progressive party and the People's party. We do not wish in future that there should occur in the councils of Canada what has occurred in the legislature of Ontario, where a party 245,000 votes in the minority undertake to govern the province. The Liberal party are proud of their old record, and well they might be. The Liberal party, successor to the Whig party, was founded upon freedom and it has more or less maintained that tradition to the present day. It is the one great merit of the Liberal party that it stands for more or less of the great principles of freedom. But it has received a serious set-back. It has been divided, and out of its rib has been created the Farmers' party of Canada. At the next election the contest will be between the People's party and the Farmers' party. I appeal to the Liberals of Canada to join the People's party of Canada-


Ernest Lapointe: Nothing doing.


Mr. BURNHAM:: -join the People's
party of Canada in withstanding the assault of any class upon the centre of government.


Jacques Bureau: You assume the paternity of that party?	,


John Hampden Burnham: If I do, the hon. gentleman will assume the maternity of it. He comes nearer to being an old woman than anybody I know.


Jacques Bureau: The only thing Parliament cannot do-change a man into a woman.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order.


John Hampden Burnham: The high cost of living in Canada does not compare with the high cost of living in the, United States. All the reciprocity and all the throwing open of the doors of the tariff would make



no difference in that particular in favour of the United States. Articles in the United States have been vastly more expensive than corresponding articles in Canada. Let (me direct the attention of the Farmers' party to a very singular thing. I do not propose to repeat any of the arguments so admirably made heretofore on either side, hut in connection with the United States free list there is something well worthy of notice, and that is that on the list there are 'Oven manufactured articles and twenty-one farm articles, that is, twenty-one articles of natural produce and only seven manufactured articles. Now, if we reverse that we will have seven farm articles and a corresponding number of manufactured articles on the free list in Canada, and we will let loose the whole world on the farming population of Canada. Manifestly that would be unfair, unreasonable and illogical. However, if the Farmers' party think not so, they will in the course of time, no doubt, explain that. But we have agricultural implements, barbed fence wire, leather belting, cement, leather of all kinds, sewing machines, twine-free on the American list. We have anthracite coal, bacon, beef, beans, bituminous coal, broom corn, buckwheat, copper, flax, flour and grain seed, hides of cattle, natural iron products, raw materials of all kinds, mutton, pork, potash, potatoes, pulpwood, rye, swine, tea and veal,-all free on the United States list. So that the American idea has been to make natural products free, but not to make manufactured products free. This must he borne in mind when we appeal to the United States free list. It seems to me that if some hon. gentlemen in the Farmers' party had proposed a resolution something like this, it would have gone a long way to meet the case. Of course, it is contrary to the rules and therefore could not be done, but if we assume that such a thing might have been done, it will serve the purposes of this discussion.
The Farmers' party and all free traders assert that taxation falls in the last analysis upon the land. Is that not so? The Farmers' party looking me squarely in the face do not deny that. We all admit that; it is an economic and natural law. They have criticised protection in the past because whilst an indirect method of collecting taxes, it was very expensive. Therefore, let the Farmers' party get up if they like and propose that all taxation should in the first instance fall upon the land. Let them say that:
Whereas, it is an economic law of taxation that taxation will fall ultimately upon that
class of property which is unahle to shift the burden elsewhere; and
Whereas, that class of property is natural property, the resources of the country, such as land, minerals, water-powers and so forth; and
Whereas, it is now desirable that this form of taxation should be levied, and-
To which proposition I would agree, but to which they would not.
Whereas, it is also desirable that employment should be secured to people developing their own country ;
Therefore, he it resolved that all taxes be placed upon natural property in the first instance, and that other means should be taken as will secure employment to the people.
If these hon. gentlemen will follow out that suggestion practically, let them crystallize into an argument those things which they maintain, namely, that taxation falls in the last, and in the first instance as well, upon the land; let them propose that to the House and to the country and see what the country thinks of it, and above all, let them see what the farmer thinks of it. It may he an economic law, but it will never commend - itself to the farmers of this country. But these gentlemen-and I say this with all due respect- dare not follow out logically the theories which they defend, the suggestions which they make from time to time. Those theories are too hazardous, they are unfair, they will not work out equitably; and while they do very well as basic theories to announce, they are wholly impracticable and unwise. I would, therefore, appeal to the Farmers' party not to oppose the People's party, but to join with us with one accord in universal political harmony and secure the best possible government for this country. There is going to be a great -deal of strife. The unrest that has existed heretofore is going to be as nothing in comparison with the unrest in the future; and as a patriotic Canadian speaking to patriotic Canadians, I implore you all not to divide yourselves up further, not to promote further strife, but to join in one great party in going to the country for an expression of the opinions of the people. I agree with the hon. member for St. Hyacint'he-Kouville. If I were this Government I would print, at the public expense, this whole debate and send it to the people ,and let the people see what the Government side and the Opposition side, both Liberals and Farmers, think of the matter. Then I would go to the country, and I would ask the people to return members accordingly and see what they would do. Unquestionably, I would do that now, for the very simple reason Shat we owe that

to the country. Here is a new and a great policy and a great party that has discarded [DOT] for the nonce its old partisan
10 p.m. name in order that it may embrace all forms of thought, in order that it may offend no one, but in order that it may secure, without any invidiousness, the support of every man who thinks well of the proposition laid before him. I do not think the Opposition would oppose that; I think the Opposition would agree that this debate might very well be printed at the public expense and scattered broadcast amongst the people. This is not a campaign document; it is a general expression of the thought of this House, and I think the people are entitled to know what we think, not simply through the medium of partisan speeches sent here and there or through the medium of partisan newspapers, but through the general official note which is taken by independent people for the benefit of the record, and from which the people themselves could get an accurate and proper idea. Then, I say, I would go, to the country, and if the people want to return a lot of groups, so as to repeat what happened in Ontario,-and a group might be 500,000 votes short and yet presume .to govern the country-if that is what they want, let them have it; but I doubt very much if the people will continue to endorse any such system.
I should like to call the attention of the free traders in this House, if there are any, to what is said by the Women's Journal,- and let me tell the House that the women are going to cut some figure in the next election.
Mr. McMAS'TEE: They always have.


John Hampden Burnham: They have not so far been referred to in the debate. The hon. gentleman (Mr. McMaster) is hastening to interpose in this particular, but he has taken great care not to mention them hitherto, and no one else on his side has done so. As a humble individual I shall be the spokesman of the women in this debate. With their feminine subtlety they refer to one or two points, and I hope due note will be taken of them. The Woman's Century is the official organ of the Women's Council of Canada. The chief patronesses are Her Excellency and the wives of the Lieutenant Governors throughout Canada. The directorate itself is very large and general, and it is hardly necessary to state that this is the chief, indeed, the only really great official organ of the women of Canada. In the editorial comment of the issue of April, 1920, this is said: lG6i
What is probably one of the bitterest party fights in Canadian political history is now on, to last till its climax at the next Dominion election. On one side the farmers, with their money and brains, have perfected their party machine, which their opponents say is a giant plough, intended to plough up Canadian cities, and presumably sow the sites with salt, as the Romans did once to Jerusalem. In other words, the farmers are furious at the " trough feeding " of the Canadian manufacturers under the present policy of protection, and they intend to do away with the tariff " on all agricultural implements, fertilizers, coal, lumber, cement, lubricating oils, etc." However, they have not the least objection to the " trough fed," highly protected manufacturers of the States. Soothingly they tell the cities that the States must " soon become a food importing country," and if we only have free trade with her, look at the cheap food you will get, etc. They omit to say, however, that food prices are higher in New York than Ontario. It is a pity. There are so many good things in the Farmers' platform that many of us will have to vote against, because we cannot see the sense in hitting the Canadian " trust " and patronizing the American one.
To my mind, that appears to be a very sensible comment, and I would recommend it to the consideration of the Farmers' party.
I should like, lest I forget it, to refer now to something which one would think that nobody could forget, and that is the return that is due to our soldiers. I do not propose to repeat anything of what has gone before, but the great general, Sir Arthur Currie, said recently that the best memorial that Canada could raise to her fallen heroes was the care that she would take of the soldiers' dependents, of the widows and orphans of the dead. I think that this should he borne in upon the Government, that whatever sacrifice has to be made should be made, and that no dependent of any soldier, certainly no dependent of any dead soldier, should be allowed to go for one moment in want. We must see to it that no such case is permitted, and I am quite sure that neither the Government nor the Pensions Committee, nor any of those bodies having to do with the soldiers will forget what General Currie has said.
Now, so long as people insist upon conducting trade on the theory of profit, just so long will one man try to grab from another as much as he can get; and just so long will quarrel and strife continue in the world and hope of equilibrium in domestic affairs fade away. It is utterly and absolutely impossible to expect a system of trade and commerce, domestic and foreign, conducted on the principle of highway robbery ever to produce good results. There is no denying the fact that profit is the taking of that for -which no return has been

given. But few propose to give it up; and until such time as it is given up, in my humble opinion we are only crying peace, peace, when there is no hope of peace. The legacy left by the late war was the unfortunate one that in the last analysis force must and will prevail. Before the war people were inclined to think that the general cultivation of civilization, and the propagation of the doctrines of Christianity would have their ultimate effect. But when they saw the world drifting towards the great cataclysm which it ultimately reached, they said: "The rough-and-ready means for us is force. We will cultivate the civilization theory on the side as a by-product, an amusement, or entertainment or something of that description; but force is what appeals to us." Thereupon there arose a body in this country, as in the United States, founded upon the principle of force; and The Pioneer, which is the great organ of the force party in Canada, admits in its issue of May 7 that the day of individual liberty has gone. It says that it is not the assertion of individual rights, hut the subordination of these to the rights of others, that represents the community of interests and the higher social untiy. Hitherto, wherever sacrifice was made it was made by the individual. It was pointed out to him what a noble thing it was for him to sacrifice for another. But since he did not observe that doctrine with the alacrity which some people desired, they reached out and seized him by the hair of his head and dragged him out of his hoots, and sent the policeman, the detective and the informer after him, saying: "Since you will not voluntarily give up your individual liberty we will make you do so." And this is the foundation of the alarm and unrest which exists in Canada. It is the foundation also -and I say it most respectfully-of the Farmers' movement; because since they see that the great area of debate no longer presents to them the most easy and effectual means of attaining their ends they have imitated the prohibitionists and propose to take what before they could not get. This is the theory upon which Canada and the Western world are now moving, and it is of course a most serious one and one that will produce serious results. Before the war, the Eastern world, Great Britain included, took its theology from Germany, *and though Germany was beaten, a great many people have continued to emulate the German idea of force. We have not gone back to where we were before; we have 
gone forward into the age of force. Faith has disappeared. All the ordinary indirect means which have been used heretofore from the foundation of the world, and the great principles exemplified in the sacrifice of Christ himself, have been discarded in order that people may be made to do what hitherto they would not he persuaded to do. A people which founds its civilization upon unfair profit, which is robbery, and upon force, can expect no good result, and we may rest assured that they will attain no good results.
In conclusion, let me say once more that I value Canada far and above all party, and though it may sound invidious, nevertheless I say, as a man who has been always a strong protectionist, and a strong Conservative, I am willing to give up that honoured name and join the Peoples' party, and let the Opposition, both Farmers and Liberals, give up something too, and let us all join the Peoples' party.


An hon. MEMBER:: Then there would be no opposition.


John Hampden Burnham: Let us join together not as Unionists, not as Conservatives, not as Liberals, not as Farmers, but as the Peoples' party, and when the representatives are sent back they will come here as the people's representatives. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that it is to the honour of the Minister of Finance that he has not only given birth to the greatest Budget ever presented in Canada but he has given birth to the greatest idea that was ever conceived in this country. And I am quite sure that not only has he rescued the financial situation, but that he has saved the national and social situation as well.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I desire first of all to tender my congratulations to the Minister of Finance for the clear exposition which he gave in his Budget Speech. It was exceedingly satisfactory to have the position of the Government clearly placed before us, whether we agree with it or not. The minister is also to be commended, I think, for his clear realization of the great need that exists for raising more revenue. The Right Hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) accuses the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) of having "afterthoughts" with regard to this need. One would suppose from his remarks in that respect that there had been no forethought shown by the members of the Opposition, while a reading of Hansard would

show clearly that during the whole period of the war we urged over and over again the need of raising more revenue as we went along.
I urged that need as strongly as I wai able and my remarks *will 'be found in Hansard of May, 1917, page 978. I found fault with the Government for not raising more money as they went along and suggested that after the war it would fbe necessary to raise $150,000,000 yearly to provide for pensions and interest om war debt alone. My suggestion was laughed at on that occasion as extravagant, but it turns out that I am considerably under the mark.
. The minister is also to (be pommended for providing that a portion of his additional taxes shall ibe levied upon luxuries. [DOT]We have heard the cry about the high cost of living and the ,cost of high living. This tax may not reduce the cost of high living but it is to be hoped it will act as a check on high living. We have waited a Jong -time for this Budget, some of us patiently and some impatiently. The period of incubation has been unusually long, but that long period has not altered the nature of the chicken. It is still a pure bread protectionist. The Government may have provided the incubator, but it is easy to know the maternal ancestor from the appearance of the chicken. It is much like the other chicks raised from Canadian Manufacturers' Association eggs. It does not grant any relief from the burdens of protection. It does not take anything from the favours enjoyed by the manufacturers at the expense of the consumers. It was suggested by many that we were 'to have a real excise tax in this Budget which would to a certain extent reduce the favours to the protected interests. It was suggested that an excise tax might be placed on all articles of home manufacture enjoying the benefits of the protective tariff equal to from 10 to 25 per cent of the protection afforded. Had this been done there would be a tremendous increase in our revenue but then there would be less coming in to the manufacturers' pocket and 'that, ,1 suppose, would not be tolerated by our manufacturing friends.
Government supporters are very critical of the cross-benchers.
It must be a tremendous relief to our friends of the regular Opposition group that the abuse of the Government side has been taken away from them and hurled at us over here. I think the members of the regular Opposition should feel thankful to
us for having drawn the fire of the Government and relieved them to the extent that we have. If it pleases the Government supporters it does not bother us. The hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) had a great many things to say about this group. I do not propose to refer at length to his remarks but I will just refer to one thing he said which I think is a fair sample of what he has given us to-night. He rears and rears, and shouts and tears, and gets up on his hind feet and abuses us most terribly, because of the assumed fact that jwe oppose campaign funds. I never heard of a campaign fund being opposed in this part of the House although I heard somebody on the hon. gentleman's own side saying that campaign funds should not be allowed at all. I never heard any man in this party say anything of the kind. What we have said is that there should be publicity ol campaign funds. Therefore my hon. friend misses the mark entirely in his criticism. And that is a fair sample of his criticism of hon. members belonging to this party. Government supporters, I repeat, have been very critical of the cross-benchers. I do not propose to reply to this criticism further than to say that the platform we support is before the public, it is clear-cut and shows the specific articles we ask to have placed on the free 'list. We are not at present asking for free trade in any others and the party is committed to nothing further than this platform.
It is said by Government supporters that there is a difference in the opinions entertained by different members of the new party. That seems, in their opinion, to be a very unusual thing in this House. I do not think it is anything at all. I think there is a greater difference of opinion among the members of the old parties than there is among the members of this party. We have agreed at least upon a platform laid down, and that is all we need to deal with at present. When we come to deal with further reductions in the tariff we will have an opportunity to see what difference of opinion if any, there is. "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." Those criticisms I expect, Will be dealt with by others before this debate closes.
The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Poster) says that the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) is playing the part of Romeo with the cross-benchers for his Juliet. The right hon. member expresses surprise

at some of the opinions he has heard from the Opposition side. I am sure that nothing he has heard from the Opposition side is more surprising than his comparison of the very guarded wooings of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's with the ardent protestations of Romeo. Who ever heard of Romeo warning Juliet of the necessity of subservience to others? - Who ever heard of him cautioning Juliet not to ask for or expect boo much? My recollection is that Romeo was much more ardent in his wooings than the leaders of either party. Government supporters are wooing us after a fashion. They would like a union of a sort with us but their wooing is somewhat after the fashion of the cave man who goes out after his bride with a ,club. The hon. member -for Shelburne and Queen's, while not possessing the ardor of a Romeo is rather more polite in his attentions than the Government supporters. It seems to me his wooing is more after the manner we would exippct from a modern Turk. He seems willing to add this group to his political harem. Should he succeed, there will surely be a mixed political family-free traders, low tariff and revenue tariff advocates, moderate protectionists and immoderate protectionists. If my hon. friend expects much support from this group after he realizes his pmbitions and finds the Liberals the strongest party in the House, he may as well make up his mind that he must drop some of his extreme protectionist friends ,and also that his pilgrimage toward the 1893 goal, "Free trade as it is in England", must be more rapid and consistent than during the fifteen years when he was in charge of the finances of this country.
Manufacturers profess a desire to oome to pn understanding with the farmers. That is quite simple. We ask for no favours. Let them do 'likewise and -all would be -well. We ask that there should be no protection on anything we produce. Will they do the same? If -they do that, all will ,be happy as ia marriage feast. The supporters of the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture ask that claims for tariff protection of any industry should be heard publicly before a special committee of Parliament. Surely that is -a reasonable request, hut .will our manufacturing -friends agree to it? They have hitherto asked us ito assume that all manufacturers require protection. We deny that and say the pnus is on them to prove their need and fight to protection. Our platform has been promulgated by representatives of

the farmers. Still the first and by far the most important item on our proposed free list is -almost entirely produced by farmers. Surely in the face of -that fact, nothing can be more absurd than the oft repeated statement that the farmers are asking for class legislation. There are many lines of manufactured goods on our proposed free list -but we deny that it has ever been established that they need tariff protection in order to carry on their business. On the contrary Government returns abundantly establish the fact that most of them can thrive without such protection. The most extensively protected of all manufactured foodstuffs is wheat flour. During the ten years ending the 31st March, 1919 we exported -from Canada flour to the value of $388,980,093. When the United States offered us free trade in wheat and flour providing we would give them the same, we were told that our flour millers would be ruined by such an arrangement. The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce on the 23rd April, 1914, insisted that placing flour on the free list would place the Canadian milling industry in great peril, and he spoke of the danger that such a step would obliterate the milling industry, though at that time millers were exporting enormous quantities of flour in open competition with the whole world, which seemed to us to show plainly that they were able to carry on without any protection. Finally, however, the Government did yield to the demand of the western members and agreed to free wheat and wheat products. Were the millers ruined? The returns show that during the iast two of the ten years mentioned our flour exports were nearly $200,000,000. We exported a greater value of flour during those two years -after flour was placed on the free list than we had exported during the preceding eight years combined. That was one of the terrible effects of free trade.
We are also large exporters of the following foodstuffs:	butter, condensed milk,
bacon-, meals of different kinds, biscuits, bread and prepared cereals. When we can sell these largely to outsiders in open competition with the world, why cannot we afford to give our own home labourers the advantage of the same open competition in buying the food to supply their .families. I know some farmers ask for protection in the things they produce. They are anxious to be placed in a position where they can charge the labourers more for their food than it can be procured at from outside producers were the tariff removed. But tho

supporters of the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture are not farmers of that kind. We are prepared to farm the land, but we don't ask for the privilege of farming the city labourer also.
We ask for free lumber. Surely no one can seriously claim that our manufacturers of lumber with their tremendous advantages are not able to compete with the world in supplying the consumers at their door. We exported farm machinery, carriages, wagons and parts thereof, fertilizers and cement to the extent of $5,361,726 in 1918 and $8,959,239 in 1919. If the manufacturers of these articles can successfully compete in open competition with the world where freight charges and national sentiment are against them who is going to believe that they are unable to compete at their own doors where freight rates and national sentiment are in their favour?
What right have Canadian manufacturers to legislation protecting them against competition at home when their own actions prove they can trade abroad without protection? Why should we favour the foreign consumer at the expense of the home consumer? That is what we are doing. The claim is sometimes made that the American manufacturers have wider markets and larger establishments than our Canadian manufacturers. There are probably a few American establishments that are larger than any of our Canadian establishments but we must also remember that the vast majority of American establishments are small. These small manufacturers in the United States have to compete with the large establishments. Why cannot our establishments do likewise?
Canadian census returns for 1911 show the number of manufacturing establishments in Canada in 1910, and the American census of 1910 shows the number of American establishments in the previous year. According to these returns we had in Canada 19,218 manufacturing establishments or one to every 375 of our population, while the United States had 268,491 establishments or one to every 347 persons. So the average Canadian manufacturer had more home customers than the American.
Now take the most extensive manufactured goods that we ask for on the free list. I find that the Canadian manufacturers of agricultural machinery and parts thereof had not so many home customers per establishment as the American, but they had a larger average output. In carriages, wagons and parts thereof, the Canadian had a wider home market and greater average output. In fertilizers the Canadian had a wider market, but turned out less per establishment. In cement the American had a wider home market and turned out more per establishment. In timber and lumber products the Canadian had a narrower home market but a larger average output. In flour and grist mill products the American had a wider home market and a greater average out turn but the difference was slight. These returns show pretty conclusively that the Canadian manufacturer does not suffer from the severe handicap he would have us believe in the matter of small establishments and limited home markets.
It is also worth while remembering that of the items we ask for on the free list the following are exempt from duty in the United States:	agricultural implements,
coal, fertilizers, cement, wheat and wheat flour, cattle, sheep, swine, etc., meat, corn, corn meal, rye and rye flour, fish, potatoes, milk, cream, eggs, lard, bread and biscuits, also most classes of oils. Our manufacturing friends tell us that they do not consider the tariff in fixing the prices and that free trade would not lessen prices. I notice however, that barbed wire, which is on the free list and which is extensively manufactured in Canada and also exported from Canada, is sold much more cheaply than woven fence wire which is not on the free list. A short time ago I inquired from a local dealer the price of various classes of wire fencing and got him to estimate the price per pound at which he sold the different kinds and found that woven wire fencing cost about 2 cents per pound more than barbed wire fencing. Woven wire fencing is dutiable; barbed wire is free. I asked him the reason and he could not tell me, but informed me that even the plain unwoven wire twisted like barbed wire but without barbs cost two cents per pound more than the barbed wire. What is the reason for that? Is there any other reason than that the manufacturers had considered the tariff when fixing the prices of fencing wire or other articles of the kind.
The claim that the manufacturers must close their doors if they get no protection is an old and oft-repeated cry, and here I must beg to repeat a portion of what has already been quoted by my hon. friend from Cape Breton North (Mr. McKenzie), as I am using it for a different purpose. When the so-called Fielding tariff was introduced Sir Charles Tupper (column 1291, Hansard, 1897), in speaking of that tariff is reported to have said:
The result is that this tariff goes into operation and the hon. gentleman knows that the

industries in this country are already paralyzed in consequence, while the hon. members gloat- vindictively gloat, over the destruction of Canadian industries. I was reading the wail-the sorrowful wail-of these industries in the Montreal Gazette, where one manufacturer after another declared that their mills must close, and that they saw staring them in the face a return to the deplorable state of things that existed when the hon. gentleman who last addressed the House was in charge of the fiscal policy of this country. I say that a deeper wrong was never inflicted upon Canada.
Tlie same sorrowful wail is repeated by our manufacturers whenever a reduction in tariff is suggested, but history has shown that there is no ground whatever for their fears. Many years ago in response to a popular demand cream separators were placed on the free list; still during the year ending 31st March, 1919, we exported cream separators to the value of $185,910. Binder-twine was placed on the free list, tout we exported to the value of $2,574,734; of barbed wire, also on the free list, we exported during the same year to the value of $138,857; and since we have placed flour on the free list our exports have been bounding almost out of sight. The 1897 tariff reduction, slight though it was, instead of injuring the manufacturer of Canada, made the country so prosperous that the sorrowful wail of the manufacturer was drowned out by the rolling waves of progress that overwhelmed him with a prosperity which he was unable to escape. The result of that tariff was that under it, from 1900 to 1910, the capital invested in Canadian manufactures increased by 179 per cent, the goods produced by 142 per cent, and the wages paid by 113 per cent. Not much to wail about, is it?-and I venture to predict that if the minister will adopt our -financial -platform-that is, the platform of this little group-the sad and sorrowful wails of our dismal-hearted manufacturers will be deluged in the same glad way.


Mr. F. B. STACEY (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, a year ago, during the debate on the Budget, I took occasion to state the attitude of four of the leading agricultural associations of Brtish Columbia toward the general question of the tariff. I do not purpose to repeat that statement further than to quote two sentences which I then read, and which are as follows:
Therefore, he it resolved that we farmers of British Columbia, as representing all the organizations named below, do not endorse or accept the tariff platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture. That we protest against any tariff legislation in the interests of any one class or industry without due consideration of the welfare of others and the progress of the Dominion.

At that time, Sir, I stated that it was not my intention to discuss the tariff. I believed then, and still believe, that there were before the House issues paramount to those involved in the tariff, and I said nothing whatever regarding the resolutions from my province further than to read them. To-night, Sir, I endorse the resolutions which I then submitted from those four organizations, viz: The Fraser Valley Milk Producers Association, composed of something over 1,000 producers of milk; the Provincial Dairymen's Association; the British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association; and the United Farmers of British Columbia.
Now, I do not forget that the U.F.A. have been persistently wooing the U.F.B. C. to accept their political platform. I do not think they have so far met with any success; of course, what the future may bring forth I do not know. But one thing I do know, Sir, that, should their wooing meet with a measure of success, to>
some of us who know the conditions under which the propoganda is being conducted, it will not be very difficult to explain what on its surface may possibly appear successful along the line I have indicated.
Permit me to say very briefly by way of introduction that in my earlier years I breathed a political atmosphere that was charged, if not, indeed, surcharged, with anti-proteetion gas. To-night I stand for the principle of protection, and in making that statement I can best illustrate my position and change of mental attitude by referring to my own province. British Columbia contains in itself practically all the essentials of true nationhood. Its population, I grant, is comparatively small-barely half a million. But, notwithstanding, British Columbia is a remarkable province, and I propose to try to show that what obtains with reference to that province obtains to a larger extent and to a greater degree with reference to the Dominion as a whole. I base my argument upon this fundamental mathematical axiom, that the whole is equal to the sum of all its parts; and I believe that what is true in mathematics is also true in economics-that what is true with regard to that physical axiom is also true in considering the nation's welfare and prosperity. I believe in the economic solidarity of the Canadian people, and that our true national prosperity can be secured only by having due regard to the prosperity of the component parts of this nation. In other words, we shall not reach

the measure of success and national prosperity that is possible unless we take into consideration the conditions prevailing in and the circumstances surrounding the various provinces, the various sections which go to make up the Dominion.
Now, with regard to my own province, and carrying out that illustration, I may say that it has an area of some 390,000 square miles. It contains vast resources of minerals. We have gold, silver, copper, lead, zinc and iron, in virtually inexhaustible quantities. The resources of coal are estimated at 76,000,000,000 metric tons. The value of the lumber cut in 1918 was nearly $28,000,000, while there is at the present time an estimated stand Of saw timber and ,pulpwood material amounting to about 366,000,000,000 board feet. With regard to water-power it is estimated that there a'-e some three millions of horse-power, of which only about one-tenth at the present time has been utilized. In 1918 British Columbia contributed about forty-one per cent of the total value of the fisheries of Canada, valued at nearly $21,500,000, exceeding the value of the fisheries of Nova Beotia by over $7,000,000 and that of the rest of the provinces combined by over $11,000,000. *Only last year the value of the salmon pack was estimated at $15,000,000. The estimated value of our agricultural production in 1918 was $42,000,000, while in 1919 the estimate is $99,000,000. We have some seven thousand miles of sea coast containing innumerable harbours, many of which rank among the finest in the world. Of course, it is well known that during the past three years shipbuilding has been carried on in British Columbia to a very large extent. It would appear that when a province has such extensive natural resources it is in the interests of all concerned that these resources should 'be developed to the greatest possible degree and that when and where necessary such protection should be afforded those who are seeking to develop industries as will best bring about the result desired. This does not mean any unnatural or forced protection when there is (no Reasonable prospect of ultimate success and development. It does not mean that because someone wants to start an industry for which the province and the district is not suited, any protection or assistance should be granted But if there are reasonable grounds to believe that such an industry would be successful; if the natural resources are there and if the outlook is at all hopeful and reasonably bright, I maintain, Sir, that it is in the interests of the people of
the province concerned to encourage by fair and legitimate protection or help, whatever may be regarded as necessary to bring about the highest possible development in such an industry. That protection is not necessarily eternal, it is not necessarily unchangeable; but it should obtain if required in the early stages of the development of that industry. What is true of a province is true of a collection of provinces-in other words, is true of the entire Dominion. The prosperity of the Dominion is contingent upon the highest development of the resources of which each section of the country is possessed.
Mr. 'Speaker, I am a lover of clean, manly sport. The other day there returned to this country a famous hockey team which had won the world's championship in the continent oif Europe, the Falcons of Winnipeg, d want to read to you, Sir, and to this House a remark made by one of the Winnipeg boys who was interviewed, as reported in the public press. Speaking of the French team, he said:
The other fellows may have been as good as us individually, but when it comes to winning hockey games it's the old club spirit that counts. And the Falcons have the club spirit to the last man on the team.
What is true in hockey is true in every other legitimate, clean sport. Individuals may sometimes apparently succeed in getting off some fancy stunt that will put themselves in the limelight and secure headlines in the daily papers. But the team that wins in the long run-and it is the long run that we are all making-is the team that recognizes the club spirit, the team spirit; the success of the whole depends upon the combination play. And I want to say to my friends opposite that the success and the prosperity of /Canada will depend upon the combination spirit. They may think that by making some grandstand home-run play they will win the game; but, Sir, they will strike out every time. We shall win in the long run as a Dominion when all the national players recognize the team combination spirit. That will secure to us the largest possible measure of success in every province, there being at the same time due recognition by all of the claims and possibilities of the other sections of this Dominion.
Now, I come back to my own province-and I do not propose to cover the whole ground of trade or commerce. My change of attitude towards this question is not the result of reading English history; it is the result of my contact with Canadian people; my knowledge of the conditions

which obtain in the various provinces of Canada, especially of my having lived for ten years in the Pacific coast province. I said a little while ago that the agricultural production of British Columbia had doubled within the last twelve months. Allow me to say now, in a little more detail, that the agricultural industry of my province may be roughly divided into three sections: live stock, grain and vegetables, and fruit. Almost all the districts of British Columbia are suitable or may be made suitable for stock raising; some of them are more adapted to grain and vegetable growing; while some are specially adapted to fruit growing. My argument then is that the possibilities of that province-and what applies to that province, I have tried to show, applies to the Dominion-can be best attained when due regard is given to the promotion of those several industries as circumstances may seem to advise.
Let me now come a little closer to a question which for four years has been agitating the minds of hon. gentlemen who come from the Prairie Provinces. I will try to remember to-night that I have the honour of addressing not simply hon. members from the Prairie Provinces; I should like to take a hint from the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Burnham) and try to make myself believe that I am addressing all the women, the housekeepers, and also the farmers of the three Prairie Provinces who may or may not be represented in this House to-night. What I have to say now will be confined to this single phase of the development of our national life. Lest I be misunderstood by some one-not purposely, I presume-allow me to state that what I am about to say has no direct reference to the constituency which I have the honour to represent, because my constituency is not to any large extent, distinctively or specifically, an apple exporting district. I want thus to clear the ground so that no one can say that I am putting up a case for my constituency. I have now reference to what is known as the southern central portion of British Columbia, which is more commonly known throughout Canada as the Okanagan district. Possibly I should include the Salmon Arm and, at any rate, the West Kootenay district. These constitute the southern central portion of British Columbia which portion, in the main, is devoted to the apple industry. Forty years ago thousands of acres of that section of our province were covered by some hundreds or possibly thousands of cattle which were endeavouring to secure a bare sustenance
[Mr. Stacey.l
from an unwilling soil. Some one fortunately discovered that if water could be put on that land it would produce fruit, and that was the beginning of the apple industry of British Columbia. Thirty years ago, or say, in 1890, there were in the entire province some 400 acres only devoted to the production of apples. Twenty years ago the number had increased, and in the entire province, there were some 8,000 acres devoted to the apple industry. Ten y ears ago that figure could be multiplied by four, or, say 32,000 acres. The value, roughly speaking, was, in 1900, $436,000, and ten years ago it had grown to something over $1,000,000. By 1914, the crop had increased another twenty-five per cent, but the value was reduced to less than $1,000,000. Five years ago the British Columbia Dparment of Agriculture estimated that the capital directly invested in the orchard industry amounted to over $20,000,000, while there were directly interested some 2,800 orchard owners. At the same time, large areas in both the Okanagan and the Kootenay valleys were being planted with trees with a view to the growing eastern business. As I said a moment ago, while the total output had increased, the total income, not relative but absolute, had decreased. The result of this was that a very serious situation was developing, and the fruit growers set about to discover the cause of that situation, and then if possible to ascertain the remedy. I shall not weary the House by citing the successive steps which were taken to secure the facts; I shall .however, give the results, which after all I suppose the House is more interested in. It was assumed, when this investigation was undertaken, that the four western provinces of Canada constituted a natural and legitimate market for the apple crop, not ignoring or forgetting the fact that Manitoba had been and probably 11 p.:m. would be supplied in a measure for years to come by the Ontario crop. But in 1914-and I specify that year, because then the matter virtually came to a climax-the Ontario crop and the British Columbia crop were the largest on record. An enormous crop was the result of the harvest of that year. But what followed? Notwithstanding that fact and the fact that during that year prices were exceedingly low, we discovered that no less than 556 carloads of apples were shipped [DOT]to the prairies by American growers. I ask hon. members to remember that, because therein lies the key to the whole situation; the solution of the whole apple problem of the far West is just at that specific

point. The four northwestern Pacific States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and possibly Montana, were some five years ahead of us in the apple industry; they had and have larger areas for apple production than we have. By 1914, it was estimated that they had planted about 500,000 acres, or more than enough .to supply their natural market. The question may be asked, and I fane it very fairly and squarely as I always want to do; it has been asked by hon. gentlemen opposite; I have me't it privately scores of times; it has been put to me in this form: If British Columbia can compete with the Northwestern Pacific States in point of quality of the article, why seek protection?-if it cannot compete with the Northwestern States, what is the logic or reason of giving protection to an incompetent or second-rate industry? I accept the question fully. Can British Columbia compete with the northwestern Pacific States? Yes, she has done so. British Columbia apples have taken first place in competitions open to the world, noticeably in the Crystal Palace Exhibition, not once, but more than once, and, Sir, Washington was an entry in that race. Therefore, I say, without fear or hesitation, that if it comes to a question of legitimate, fair, open competition, British Columbia can beat the world; she has done it. Then, hon. members may ask me; In face of that, why did British Columbia ask a protection of thirty cents per box? And I shall be delighted to answer. I said a moment ago that the Northwestern States had a very large output and they had in prospect a very much larger output because of their immense acreage. I should like hon. members to follow me closely when I tell them that the two finest grades of northwestern fruit have been for years marketed in the great American cities of the Middle West and also in the cities of the Far East; the growers have sent their extra fancy and fancy grades to the great American cities with marked success, but that left on their hands the third grade which they could not ship to those cities and for which a market must be found nearer home. Where did they look for that market? To the Canadian prairies. And having secured their profit on their fancy and extra fancy grades, they launched upon the Canadian prairies their third grade article at any figure which could be secured for that product. I am prepared to -prove that they sold hundreds of carloads at a net loss. It can be shown by their own figures that in the Northwestern states during that time it cost $1.06 to produce a box of apples, and it cost in British
Columbia at the same time about $1.15. Why? One reason is that we paid labour higher than labour was paid across the line, and another reason is that we paid more for containers than they did in the United States; and if hon. gentlemen ask for an explanation of those facts, I can tell them it is because they had a better organization than we had and beat us at buying. But notwithstanding the fact that it cost the growers in the Northwestern states $1.06 -I am not speaking in millions but in something I can understand, a dollar and a few cents-they were willing to contract for hundreds of carloads at a loss of from 40 to 50 cents per box. Why? Because they wanted to do two things: to get rid of a surplus stock, and then to secure the market for the future. With what result to British Columbia? British Columbia had to compete with that abnormal, illegal price -I do not know that I should call it illegal, but at any rate I will say, unfair. She had to compete with that reduced price for Northwestern stock on the Canadian prairies. It cost us $1.15 to produce a box of apples, and we were forced to sell at under 90 cents a box in order to get any sale whatever. How long, think you, Mr. Speaker, would an industry survive that was carried on under those conditions, at a loss of 25 cents or thereabouts on every box that was put upon the open market? There was only one thing to do. The dumping regulations would not apply; that fruit was properly stamped and graded. The Fruit Growers' Association and the legislature of British Columbia appealed to this Government four years ago and asked for a reasonable protection. I am not now speaking of revenue; I do not believe the Government got much out of it in the line of revenue; I am speaking from the standpoint of protection. In order to protect, which meant to preserve the life of, the British Columbia apple industry, this Government very wisely, as we thought, granted, in the session of 1916, a protection of 30 cents per box upon imported American fruit, with the result that that year we sold our apples at a bare trifle above actual cost price.
Now, I hold in my hand a copy of this famous platform, but I do not propose to read it all. With very much of it I agree. On page 13 I read under the heading "Definite Tariff Demands" a proposal that the tariff laws be amended "by placing all foodstuffs on the free list." May I tell my hon. friends, for their future guidance, that there is certainly no better foodstuff than

British Columbia apples? Now, Sir, I have something else which I desire to read to the House. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), who I regret is not in his place, is reported t-o have said in a speech *delivered in the city of Regina on November 19, 1919:
If the rich man wants to have grape fruit for breakfast he pays no duty. If you want to eat a baked apple for your morning meal you can have it in the face of a customs protection of somewhere around fifty cents per barrel. . . . The application of the principle of protection is unsound economically and retards the development of a country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Frank Bainard Stacey: And hon. gentlemen applaud that! Think of it. The hon. member for Marquette says: "If you want to eat a baked apple you"-that is, the poor people-"can have it in the face of a customs protection of somewhere around fifty cents per barrel." By the way, I want to be perfectly candid and tell my hon. friend that he is wrong in his figures. The customs protection is 90 cents per barrel, or 30 cents per box. He should have said to them: "Gentlemen, if I had had my way, you poor people would not have got any apples at all." There would not have been a British 'Columbia apple on the prairies. The trees in British 'Columbia would all have been destroyed because the growers would have been producing at a loss. So soon as that had happened the American Northwestern States would have jumped the price up and would have controlled the importation because the Nash interests in the Northwestern States control the whole situation and there would have been apples on the prairie just according as it suited the Nash interest and in spite of everything else. Without that thirty cents a box, apples on the prairies would have been absolutely prohibitive. The people never would have looked at one. E am not talking poetry, and I have not the grace of oratory to make this go very far into your skulls, I am afraid; but what I am saying is solid truth, solid fact. The farmers, and indeed the entire population, of the Canadian prairies, may be profoundly thankful. that the Government of Canada did four years ago grant this comparatively small protection of thirty cents per box, because it saved the industry to British Columbia and for the western prairies.
il want to emphasize that last word. There are 28,000 men who would have been put out of business in British Columbia. I suppose some of these hon. gentlemen re-

gard that as a very insignificant matter. We believe in interprovincial trade. Our people, year by year, buy from $12,000,000 to $15,000,000 worth of stuff especially from the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. That may not be very much but it is a big thing for us especially under existing conditions. Tf those 28,000 growers had been put out of business what would have been the situation at the present time? They have in the Northwestern States a far greater acreage than we have, they have resources far beyond what we have and we could not imagine a better crop than we had in 1914. What would have been ahead of us? Nothing but absolute ruin. What saved the country, what saved the growers, what saved my own province, was that this Government, in 1916, did what we asked. The situation was saved and as a result the prairies had cheap fruit.
I do not forget while I speak that last year the price was high. But of all agricultural products fruit was the last one to respond to the general rise in prices as far as the producer was concerned. Our product last year was not as great as possibly it might have been. Shall I dare tell the IHiouse one reason why our product last year was smaller? I think I shall. Last May I went down through the Okanagan on some business. I saw ranch after ranch in the Okanagan that was growing up a waste-trees neglected and no crop worth speaking of. Why, I said at some of these ranches: " Where is the owner; and what is he doing?" Enlisted! I was told man after man deliberately got up and left his ranch, the whole proposition, and struck out across the seas. To give you one single illustration:	I met an
old hero; he was over sixty years of age, he had just got back and I took off imy hat in his presence. He and his wife had gone overseas. She was a trained nurse. He had returned, being demobilized before she was, and he was expecting her in a few days. She had been promoted to the rank of captain. I looked into his face and said: " Ah, ha things will be different when she gets back; she is your superior officer." " Oh, no " he replied, " she will have to revert to private rank." My only object in mentioning that is to show that whole areas in the apple producing country were left to take care of themselves the best they could because the ranchers went overseas and hastened to get there at the earliest possible date. All honour to these men.

I am not talking politics. I am giving you facts and I am speaking to the populations of Alberta and Saskatchewan and, to some extent, of Manitoba. If there is one thing that the people of the prairies should be pleased over it is that the policy of this Government in 1916 saved them from' an exorbitant increase in the prices of apples since that date. While I do not forget the fine quality of the apples in Ontario, Nova Scotia and Quebec, everybody knows that under normal conditions that product finds its market overseas. We are prepared to meet any honest Canadian competition; it matters not where it comes from. What we do object to, and what we have persistently objected to, is the unfair, unreasonable and unneighbourly policy of dumping third-rate stuff upon the poor prairie people and forcing the higher-quality fruit off the market.
How can we, in face of these plain facts, ptand up in this House and say, as did my horn, friend who just sat down (Mr. Thomson): No protection on anything we produce is what we stand for? I claim that is a narrow policy. I claim that is not a team policy, I claim that is not a policy that will win in the Long run for the Canadian people. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) in a speech made recently before this House said:
What grown man should want protection anyhow? Our sons and brothers in the trenches did not want protection; it was the fellows they went up against that needed protection.
That was uttered, I presume in a burst of impassioned eloquence. But what is the fact to-day? Every steel helmet upon the head of a soldier on the continent of Europe is the refutation of that statement; and when a man foolishly, or otherwise, so disregarded the idea of protection that he stuck up his head a little too high he paid for his foolishness with his life. Protection! All .civilization and all legislation is based upon protection. Strike out protection and we have anarchy. It is folly for a man to say that he denounces the idea of protection. The whole structure of our civilization, of constitutional government, and of everything we hold dear, rests upon some application of the fundamental principle of protection. It is legitimate, it is natural, it is necessary, and it is a proper application in the realm of economics.
With regard to the amendment, my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) spoke of its destructive character. I shall not repeat what he said; but in looking at what it proposes to do I, too, Sir,
was struck with its vein of common generalities-the old expressions of the high cost of living and of the need for a general reduction in the tariff,-and I thought of Tennyson's words in that connection:
nuUaUlti'y ^auItless' ioi,y regular, splendidly
With regard to the Budget, Sir, I can easily understand that any man with one eye on his pocket and the other on the Government's proposals could take his pen and draw a line through a great many of the clauses, and if three or four million other men did that we would have a beautiful Budget; the best men would be out of a job and the country would soon be a memory. We have an enormous debt, and as I-a plain, common working man-see it there is only one of two things to do; either borrow the money or pay it. I propose to do my part towards paying it. I believe, Sir, that while the people of this country may perhaps criticize some of the measures outlined in the Budget they will on the whole accept it as the best possible solution of the great problem which confronts Canada to-day. If I might attempt to suggest for the consideration of the minister one shall I say, amendment?-one thought, that might find a place in his mind overnight, it would be this: I would suggest to him to consider the advisability of making a provision whereby every citizen of Canada who reached the years of matur-lty should be compelled to pay a minimum Dominion Income Tax of, say, $2. I believe, Sir, that would link up with this country's financial interests every citizen fiom the Atlantic to the Pacific in a way in which they are not now linked up. There are hundreds and thousands who wall not be called upon to pay an income tax directly. For their own sake, for the sake of the interest it will create in their own minds regarding the welfare and the development of this country and its future prosperity, I would have every man and woman over twenty-one years of age without exception, asked to pay a small tax or an income tax. That would identify them, continually and individually, with the economic and general welfare of the Dominion.
Mr ARTHUR L. DESAULNIERS (Champlain) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I consider it my duty to join my colleagues of the left who have taken part in this debate in protesting strongly against the administration which obtains at the present time. This protest, Mr. Speaker, I must

utter in the name of more than fifty thousand citizens whom I have the honour to represent on the floor of this House, and particularly in the name of the many brave young men of my county <who enlisted in the Canadian army for the defence of the Empire and who now meet with so little recognition from the Government. I must voice it also in the name of the agricultural class and of the entire labouring class, who have worked and suffered through the great war, and who, to-day and to-morrow, will continue to work and suffer in order to meet the staggering debts heaped upon the country by extravagant expenditure and the awarding of profiteering contracts to favourites and supporters of the Government.
We might have believed, Mr. Speaker, that once the armistice was signed, which in reality meant the end of the war, the Government would have chosen economy for the first article of their programme. Thus, instead of assuming the pompous title of Government of Reconstruction, they should in all decency have called themselves an economic Government and have practiced economy in all things. But on the contrary, they increased expenditure m enormous proportions. They even were bound to have recourse to considerable loans under conditions most onerous and most unfavourable to the country. Instead of being reduced, the effectives of the Canadian militia were increased, even doubled; administrative commissions are created in all the departments; a course which Roubles and trebles the cost of administration. The nationalization of the railways, the creation of a merchant fleet, when the country is already on the brink of bankruptcy, I hold to be national suicide. And that is why the Government had to face in its loans rates of interest higher than that which would be paid even by the unfortunate farmer forced to borrow a thousand dollars from his neighbour.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is not by borrowing money, nor by increasing the duties, nor by imposing taxes that we shall remove the unrest that prevails at present throughout the country. That is not the means of restoring the confidence and wellbeing which our people need, neither of reducing the high cost of living that is bearing so heavily on them.
I was surprised but delighted to hear, in the opening-days of this session, that the navy was about to disappear; but, knowing the inclinations of this Government as I do, I am afraid it will come back stronger than ever after the Imperial Conference.

If we jwish to restore peace, harmony, confidence and prosperity and to balance our finances, Mr. Speaker, we must put off this onerous scheme of a navy to fifty years *hence; we must reduce the permanent forces of the Militia to the strength that is strictly necessary for maintaining order in the country; we must abolish all commissions that are more or less useful, such as the Board of Commerce which the people talk so ; nicely about and which threatens to become famous, the Railway Commission, the only one which might be of some little use, the Civil Service Commission, so much criticized even by the most faithful supporters of the Government, the Purchasing Commission, who have the power to buy more than the Government can afford to pay, the Tariff Commission, still in the embryonic stage, the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Board, which, judging by the many amendments brought at every session, has been badly conceived, and all other commissions the names of which I do not remember now but that are still less necessary i and more useless. The population of our country has barely increased in the course of the last fifteen .years; however, the number of civil servants was more than doubled, on account of these commissions, so that we have,never enough buildings to accommodate them all.
To explain their policy of deficits, the Government stated that large works had been undertaken sooner than they wished, with a view to procuring work for the lab-ourmen and the returned soldiers. We cannot accept that argument, Mr. Speaker, when we know that labour is scarce in the country and that in many places the soil is not producing what it should, because the farmers cannot secure the help they require; also when we know that the manufacturers, particularly the lumber men, have very much difficulty in getting the men they want for their factories and mills, notwithstanding the continuous and alarming increase of wages which are not yet sufficient to meet the high cost of living.
For all the reasons ,1 have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, I wish to appeal to the good sense of former Liberals sitting on your right, Mr. Speaker, and 1 am asking them to endeavour to impress upon their Conservative friends who are _ in power, the necessity of dissolving Parliament immediately after this session, in order that the people may select their representatives, not for their purposes, but with the only object of assisting in the economic and social reconstruction of our country. Thus shall

be sent back home those pretended patriots who, since their coming into power, confined themselves in tearing up our statutes to replace them by ever famous Orders in Council, that iniquitous legislation which sanctioned the utmost arbitrary and most autocratic measures.
Thus, the people would be able to elect representatives who, while in Parliament, would strive to create a real "entente cor-diale" between the different nationalities in 'Canada and to eliminate racial disputes so often raised by hon. members opposite.
Thrift is a vain word on the lips of hon. members from the opposite side of this House and of hon. members of this Unionist Government. Why should they talk about economy, when they advocate measures entailing such heavy expenditure at a time when the country is on the verge of bankruptcy? Why should they epeak of saving, when the present 'Government are encouraging the profiteers whom they let accumulate millions of pounds of foodstuffs, while t'he people groan under the burden of taxes and the exorbitant cost of essential commodities? Why should they advocate thrift, when the Government are making the ridiculous promise to lend 125 millions to foreign countries, while our finances are in such a bad condition; but that is another way of further enriching the Canadian manufacturers who made millions out of the war.
Now, if iwe look at Canada from a social standpoint, we regret to find that, the country is seething with unrest and' discontent; that this epidemic of strikes is reaching an acute state; that the troubles between capital and labour have brought hardships to the working people and even to the farming community who are no longer able to provide for their wants, owing to the high cost of living. What is the Government doing? What is the Minister of Labour doing? I think I am within the mark when I say that such a state of affairs was brought about, to a large extent, through the supineness of the Minister of Labour. In these times of stress, when all our energies should be bent towards securing that economic and social reconstruction I was referring to a moment ago, which is the first requirement for the prosperity of Canada, it is absolutely necessary that the electors of this Country be called upon to choose representatives, having at heart its interests, men who' are able to put our affairs on a .sound financial basis, and to cause Canada to successfully hold its place among other countries, so that the dictum
of iSir Wilfrid Laurier may prove true, when he said that the 20th century would be Canada's century.
'On motion of Mr. McCoig the debate was adjourned.
On the motion of Rt. Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 11.50 p.m.
Friday, May 21, 1920.